₦airaland Forum

I think like other physical faculties, thinking is unevenly distributed and I have prize evidence here

You are just kicking the can further down the road. What is the basis for ASSUMING that 'other Jews' MUST mean Jews sent from Jerusalem? We're there not Jews in Antioch together with Paul?

Now, you are fantasizing about imaginary letters from James and claiming the same letter to be what Paul and Barnbas were entrusted with in Acts 15? I think if there is a goD in Nigeria it must be Oyaks and you would kill for him not just lie.

Acts 15:25 (KJV)
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul

Verse 27
(KJV) We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth

Verse 30-34
(KJV) So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. 32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. 33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. 34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. 35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Can you explain to me how and why with evidence (and Rhapsodies/Oyaks BS don't count) you believe Paul got to Anioch AHEAD of the VERY letter he was commissioned to deliver there? If 'certain came from James' are those sent to deliver the epistle,why would Paul regard himself as not part of that delegation yet Acts 15:25 is clear he was part of it?

Am still waiting for you to apologize and withdraw the false allegations against the person of vooks regarding the claim that I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. But you are exempted if Naija goDs don't apologize to mortals

mbaemeka:
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) [b]they brought the letter to the church in Antioch [/b]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.

mbaemeka:
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.

Haba mba! Was this necessary? Calm down, it's not worth following his footsteps of insults.

Lobeez:
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

I don laff tire o.....

Repeat, who said Eve had sex with the serpent? Where is that?
Unlike you I read lines not empty spaces between them.
If you must know, am fully circumcised but that's nothing

You can paste my post here where I said thus. The only reason you haven't done so is because you sought to deflect from your Oyaks stupid theories by FALSELY accusing me of an error.

Jesus ascended ONCE after resurrection. The rest is fiction. We can get to that but first paste my thread where I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. You are a dirty dishonest negro fit only for regurgitating Christ Embassy manuals

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.

mbaemeka:
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.

Ok. Actually, No new testament scripture talks about first fruits in relation to material giving to God or anybody. (i stand to be corrected)

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.

at the bolded, do you have any scripture in the NT to confirm that? If you decide to apply the Mosaic law and Solomon's admonition on first fruits to yourself, it's very well within your rights after all, there are a lot of practices from Mosaic law and the OT which some people have picked personal doctrines from which i trust you and i would agree has no relevance to a Christian. What i can't find a support for is first fruit as a doctrine for a Christians.

If Hagin affirms that first fruits has nothing to do with financial giving or money in the NT, then if i agree with you that he still went ahead to give first fruits, in what form then did he give the first fruits?

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.

@the bolded, that's not the only thing he said. see the full statement ''[size=16pt]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.[/size]''

Hagin is saying ''Nothing in the new testament talks about first fruits as a form of financial giving, support for ministers or even money at all''

I'm not against folks deciding to practice it. What i rebel against is preaching it from the pulpit as a christian doctrine. It is Mosaic in form and practice. It will be much better if Christians are told this truth and i trust that's what Hagin said in the book.

Gombs:


Haba mba! Was this necessary? Calm down, it's not worth following his footsteps of insults.

I regretted sending it right after. Some of these guys can make one make posts that would cause one to end up apologizing to God for.

vooks:
Repeat, who said Eve had sex with the serpent? Where is that?
Unlike you I read lines not empty spaces between them.
If you must know, am fully circumcised but that's nothing

You can paste my post here where I said thus. The only reason you haven't done so is because you sought to deflect from your Oyaks stupid theories by FALSELY accusing me of an error.

Jesus ascended ONCE after resurrection. The rest is fiction. We can get to that but first paste my thread where I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. You are a dirty dishonest negro fit only for regurgitating Christ Embassy manuals

I am ignoring this post because I don't want to spend today apologising to God. Let me just chip in at this juncture that I am very sure you read the spaces in between words and nothing more. Maybe someone with more patience than me will answer the question on the serpent and your post which I already showed to you. As per how many times Jesus resurrected tell that to Mary.

Vooks and lobeez, I have no reasonable reason to speak to you now. Your dishonesty, poor reading and comprehension ability (lobeez) and insensitivity to people's livelihood, (vooks) are not encouraging to continue a discussion with you both. I humbly announce I will not discuss with you both or engage your posts. I humbly ask you don't quote me or direct a question to me, if you do, I'd ignore them. Feel free to troll .

Candour! I wish some guys on the other side of WoF, would learn from you.

vooks:
I think like other physical faculties, thinking is unevenly distributed and I have prize evidence here

You are just kicking the can further down the road. What is the basis for ASSUMING that 'other Jews' MUST mean Jews sent from Jerusalem? We're there not Jews in Antioch together with Paul?

Now, you are fantasizing about imaginary letters from James and claiming the same letter to be what Paul and Barnbas were entrusted with in Acts 15? I think if there is a goD in Nigeria it must be Oyaks and you would kill for him not just lie.

Acts 15:25 (KJV)
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul

Verse 27
(KJV) We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth

Verse 30-34
(KJV) So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. 32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. 33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. 34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. 35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Can you explain to me how and why with evidence (and Rhapsodies/Oyaks BS don't count) you believe Paul got to Anioch AHEAD of the VERY letter he was commissioned to deliver there? If 'certain came from James' are those sent to deliver the epistle,why would Paul regard himself as not part of that delegation yet Acts 15:25 is clear he was part of it?

Am still waiting for you to apologize and withdraw the false allegations against the person of vooks regarding the claim that I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. But you are exempted if Naija goDs don't apologize to mortals

Ask politely and I would teach you. Luke wrote Acts and Paul wrote Galatians. To get thr full picture of the whole occurrence we would need to merge both accounts. I know you are not well versed in the scriptures because if you were you would have known that. I can show you many instances between both books that if one doesn't merge them properly each story will look like a contradiction. Let me show the one concerning what is being discussed.

Read Galatians 2 from verse 1-14 and take note of when the meeting in Jerusalem ended. I think it was around verse 5-9 or so. You would see that whilst Paul verbally narrated the minutes of the meeting to the church in Antioch, Silas and Judas came with a written letter which they read out (Acts 15). You would tell from Paul's account in Galatians 2 that the sent men from James like Silas and co could have only come well after he and Barnabas did and also well after Peter arrived.

Don't be incorrigible. Learn to study properly before posting.

candour,mbaemeka,
I haven't read Hagin in a long time and I was looking for that smoking gun, that doctrine/ practice he is so much against yet at some point he taught it. Looks like if mbaemeka is sober for once about the conclusion he draws from all the books he read on Hagin that he offered Firstfruits,and the easily provable denouncing of the same in Midas Touch,then Firstfruits is that gun.

Candour:
Ok. Actually, No new testament scripture talks about first fruits in relation to material giving to God or anybody. (i stand to be corrected)



at the bolded, do you have any scripture in the NT to confirm that? If you decide to apply the Mosaic law and Solomon's admonition on first fruits to yourself, it's very well within your rights after all, there are a lot of practices from Mosaic law and the OT which some people have picked personal doctrines from which i trust you and i would agree has no relevance to a Christian. What i can't find a support for is first fruit as a doctrine for a Christians.

If Hagin affirms that first fruits has nothing to do with financial giving or money in the NT, then if i agree with you that he still went ahead to give first fruits, in what form then did he give the first fruits?





@the bolded, that's not the only thing he said. see the full statement ''[size=16pt]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.[/size]''

Hagin is saying ''Nothing in the new testament talks about first fruits as a form of financial giving, support for ministers or even money at all''

I'm not against folks deciding to practice it. What i rebel against is preaching it from the pulpit as a christian doctrine. It is Mosaic in form and practice. It will be much better if Christians are told this truth and i trust that's what Hagin said in the book.

mbaemeka:
I regretted sending it right after. Some of these guys can make one make posts that would cause one to end up apologizing to God for.

I understand perfectly, I nearly gave it to some folks here, we just have to restrain ourselves, so that folks can clearly differentiate those who are uncultured.

Sure, God HATES a lying tongue and you keep on lying

mbaemeka:
I am ignoring this post because I don't want to spend today apologising to God. Let me just chip in at this juncture that I am very sure you read the spaces in between words and nothing more. Maybe someone with more patience than me will answer the question on the serpent and your post which I already showed to you. As per how many times Jesus resurrected tell that to Mary.

Enter the Mother of conjectures.
ANYTHING you do to 'merge' I can easily with scriptures disprove. Jerome was here before you but unlike you, he bowed to common sense. He thought Peter was not the same Cephas who denied Christ thrice! You merge related events not Pentecost and circumcision of Jesus Christ.

You may try and merge resurrection appearances and watch your double ascension theory fall flat. I highly recommend a book, The Easter Enigma. It will prevent your puny brains from overheating trying to work it out all by yourself

mbaemeka:
Ask politely and I would teach you. Luke wrote Acts and Paul wrote Galatians. To get thr full picture of the whole occurrence we would need to merge both accounts. I know you are not well versed in the scriptures because if you were you would have known that. I can show you many instances between both books that[b] if one doesn't merge them properly each story will look like a contradiction[/b]. Let me show the one concerning what is being discussed.

Read Galatians 2 from verse 1-14 and take note of when the meeting in Jerusalem ended. I think it was around verse 5-9 or so. You would see that whilst Paul verbally narrated the minutes of the meeting to the church in Antioch, Silas and Judas came with a written letter which they read out (Acts 15). You would tell from Paul's account in Galatians 2 that the sent men from James like Silas and co could have only come well after he and Barnabas did and also well after Peter arrived.

Don't be incorrigible. Learn to study properly before posting.

Gombs:
Vooks and lobeez, I have no reasonable reason to speak to you now. Your dishonesty, poor reading and comprehension ability (lobeez) and insensitivity to people's livelihood, (vooks) are not encouraging to continue a discussion with you both. I humbly announce I will not discuss with you both or engage your posts. I humbly ask you don't quote me or direct a question to me, if you do, I'd ignore them. Feel free to troll .

Candour! I wish some guys on the other side of WoF, would learn from you.

@the bolded, are you deliberately trying to provoke a reaction with the insults embeded there?

I wish some guys on your side can learn to chill too. We all can blow our tops and we all know how to provoke the other party to blow their tops. I have kept quiet in the face of insults and provocations sometimes, sometimes i've been provoked into responding. We all prove how human we are everytime. This is why i've reduced my engagements on NL in recent times.

i wish we all can learn to chill, give your opinion and move ahead.

This is a public forum...only your thought will I desist from commenting on. Anything you post is game

Gombs:
Vooks and lobeez, I have no reasonable reason to speak to you now. Your dishonesty, poor reading and comprehension ability (lobeez) and insensitivity to people's livelihood, (vooks) are not encouraging to continue a discussion with you both. I humbly announce I will not discuss with you both or engage your posts. I humbly ask you don't quote me or direct a question to me, if you do, I'd ignore them. Feel free to troll .

Candour! I wish some guys on the other side of WoF, would learn from you.

Candour:
Ok. Actually, No new testament scripture talks about first fruits in relation to material giving to God or anybody. (i stand to be corrected)



at the bolded, do you have any scripture in the NT to confirm that? If you decide to apply the Mosaic law and Solomon's admonition on first fruits to yourself, it's very well within your rights after all, there are a lot of practices from Mosaic law and the OT which some people have picked personal doctrines from which i trust you and i would agree has no relevance to a Christian. What i can't find a support for is first fruit as a doctrine for a Christians.

If Hagin affirms that first fruits has nothing to do with financial giving or money in the NT, then if i agree with you that he still went ahead to give first fruits, in what form then did he give the first fruits?





@the bolded, that's not the only thing he said. see the full statement ''[size=16pt]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.[/size]''

Hagin is saying ''Nothing in the new testament talks about first fruits as a form of financial giving, support for ministers or even money at all''

I'm not against folks deciding to practice it. What i rebel against is preaching it from the pulpit as a christian doctrine. It is Mosaic in form and practice. It will be much better if Christians are told this truth and i trust that's what Hagin said in the book.

Certainly you and Hagin are right in the sense that there was not a mention of the word firstfruits as related to money or financial givings in the NT. But the word (or compound word as the case maybe) 'firstfruits' actually means the 'first' from both NT and OT accounts alike and that is the PRINCIPLE (not doctrine) that some of us applied to Proverbs 3:9.

Also I believe Hagin gave money as his firstfruits but he didn't teach it as a doctrine like one will teach Baptisms or Laying on of hands. He probably practiced giving firstfruits with the same mentality those that give 90% of their incomes have I.e he practiced it based on his convictions about giving and not because any law said so.

Also, I disagree with the idea of it being taught as a doctrine when it clearly isn't even as I disagree with the notion that it is Mosaic in form and practice. Abel gave firstfruits to God. God asked Abraham for his 'firstfruits' of some sorts (Isaac), Jesus was God's firstfruit, King Mesha gave his firstfruit (his son) to God and it was honoured. I believe it is just a principle like when people give gifts to their parents even if the said Parents are far richer than their kids.

That's my take.

Gombs:
I understand perfectly, I nearly gave it to some folks here, we just have to restrain ourselves, so that folks can clearly differentiate those who are uncultured.

Good councel bro. I heed.

mbaemeka:
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.

mbaemeka, now it is confirmed that you are a fat-headed good for nothing/worthless person

On top of been a drama queen, you are hearing impaired - it was nora544 and Lobeez first who added videos on the thread until others responded with follow ups and more details

You're so gormless, you really don't have a clue.
Keep on making statements but not doing it in verbatim, and be basking in the thoughtless praises of those hoodwinked and caught up in your misrepresentations and deceitfulness.

You have a psychological problem mbaemeka, no doubt as your paranoia with IDs or monickers are very well known.
You're clutching at straws about anyone deactivating accounts, and lying through your teeth making unfounded allegations

You're playing to the gallery because you're nothing than an attention-seeking, distracting, desperate sad person who will try anything, say anything, no matter how unlikely, how untrue, just to massage that over-bloated ego of yours that needs a good old deflating

You have nothing on me. Can't touch this. Suck it up. Loser.

vooks:
Enter the Mother of conjectures.
ANYTHING you do to 'merge' I can easily with scriptures disprove. Jerome was here before you but unlike you, he bowed to common sense. He thought Peter was not the same Cephas who denied Christ thrice! You merge related events not Pentecost and circumcision of Jesus Christ.

You may try and merge resurrection appearances and watch your double ascension theory fall flat. I highly recommend a book, The Easter Enigma. It will prevent your puny brains from overheating trying to work it out all by yourself

You make me laugh. I can take you to places in your bible that you have read for days and spin you with them. As per 'puny brains' let me join you laughing hard to that joke

I'd leave it there for now since it seems you are indeed a newbie.

Let me help you out a little. Look for a thread called "the Falsehoods of Paul" and see how my ability to merge Acts and Galatians helped enlighten a few people whose brains although puny, will make yours appear microscopic if juxtaposed.

Sir,
With all due respect, Hagin went further than mentioning it; he denounced it, otherwise it would be hard to rationalize the man teaching ANY form of Firstfruits where all he mentions about them is AGAINST. If he sought to correct the application OR administration of the doctrine like he does to some extent on tithing, I would have expected some form of formation of the same

mbaemeka:
Certainly you and Hagin are right in the sense that there was not a mention of the word firstfruits as related to money or financial givings in the NT. But the word (or compound word as the case maybe) 'firstfruits' actually means the 'first' from both NT and OT accounts alike and that is the PRINCIPLE (not doctrine) that some of us applied to Proverbs 3:9.

Also I believe Hagin gave money as his firstfruits but he didn't teach it as a doctrine like one will teach Baptisms or Laying on of hands. He probably practiced giving firstfruits with the same mentality those that give 90% of their incomes have I.e he practiced it based on his convictions about giving and not because any law said so.

Also, I disagree with the idea of it being taught as a doctrine when it clearly isn't even as I disagree with the notion that it is Mosaic in form and practice. Abel gave firstfruits to God. God asked Abraham for his 'firstfruits' of some sorts (Isaac), Jesus was God's firstfruit, King Mesha gave his firstfruit (his son) to God and it was honoured. I believe it is just a principle like when people give gifts to their parents even if the said Parents are far richer than their kids.

That's my take.

BabaGnoni:
mbaemeka, now it is confirmed that you are a fat-headed good for nothing/worthless person

On top of been a drama queen, you are hearing impaired - it was nora544 and Lobeez first who added videos on the thread until others responded will follow ups and more details

You're so gormless, you really don't have a clue.
Keep on making statements but not doing it in verbatim, and be basking in the thoughtless praises of those hoodwinked and caught up in your misrepresentations and deceitfulness.

You have a psychological problem mbaemeka, no doubt as your paranoia with IDs or monickers are very well known.
You're clutching at straws about anyone deactivating accounts, and lying through your teeth making unfounded allegations

You're playing to the gallery because you're nothing than an attention-seeking, distracting, desperate sad person who will try anything, say anything, no matter how unlikely, how untrue, just to massage that over-bloated ego of yours that needs a good old deflating

You have nothing on me. Suck it up. Loser.

OK man. It sure does hurt to be exposed as an intellectual fugazi. If you had the chance I am sure you would rush to edit the 'not-too-wise' claim you made about Galileo and Columbus.

Let me let you heal from the pain. No need to strike a thing when he is down.

Next chapter loading!

vooks:
Sir,
With all due respect, Hagin went further than mentioning it; he denounced it, otherwise it would be hard to rationalize the man teaching ANY form of Firstfruits where all he mentions about them is AGAINST. If he sought to correct the application OR administration of the doctrine like he does to some extent on tithing, I would have expected some form of formation of the same

If you could read you would have seen it.

Candour:
@the bolded, are you deliberately trying to provoke a reaction with the insults embeded there?

I wish some guys on your side can learn to chill too. We all can blow our tops and we all know how to provoke the other party to blow their tops. I have kept quiet in the face of insults and provocations sometimes, sometimes i've been provoked into responding. We all prove how human we are everytime. This is why i've reduced my engagements on NL in recent times.

i wish we all can learn to chill, give your opinion and move ahead.

Don't mind the guy, him think say I get him time.

He obviously couldn't answer the question directed at him for claims he made here and he has chosen the dishonourable path.

The dude no reach to provoke me

You know why they say about fools? The fewer words they utter, the more intelligent they appear

Proverbs 17:28 (KJV)
28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise:
and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

Gombs has taken an oath of silence. Gladly join him and save face o goD mbaemeko

mbaemeka:
You make me laugh. I can take you to places in your bible that you have read for days and spin you with them. As per 'puny brains' let me join you laughing hard to that joke

I'd leave it there for now since it seems you are indeed a newbie.

Let me help you out a little. Look for a thread called "the Falsehoods of Paul" and see how my ability to merge Acts and Galatians helped enlighten a few people whose brains although puny, will make yours appear microscopic if juxtaposed.

mbaemeka:
OK man. It sure does hurt to be exposed as an intellectual fugazi.
If you had the chance I am sure you would rush to edit the 'not-too-wise' claim you made about Galileo and Columbus.

Let me let you heal from the pain. No need to strike a thing when he is down.

mbaemeka you really should be sectioned and the key thrown away

Quote me now and let the jury decide.
Bring out verbatim what I wrote.

You hallucinating self-delusional inveterate incorrigible clown.

If I was congenially obtuse and hopelessly brainwashed with Oyaks BS I could see it I agree

mbaemeka:
If you could read you would have seen it.

mbaemeka:
Certainly you and Hagin are right in the sense that there was not a mention of the word firstfruits as related to money or financial givings in the NT. But the word (or compound word as the case maybe) 'firstfruits' actually means the 'first' from both NT and OT accounts alike and that is the PRINCIPLE (not doctrine) that some of us applied to Proverbs 3:9.

Also I believe Hagin gave money as his firstfruits but he didn't teach it as a doctrine like one will teach Baptisms or Laying on of hands. He probably practiced giving firstfruits with the same mentality those that give 90% of their incomes have I.e he practiced it based on his convictions about giving and not because any law said so.

Actually like i said earlier, it is within our individual rights to adopt any practice as long as we don't make it a rule for others. I too have some form of 'first fruit' practice if we can call it that. What i won't do is say it is in obedience to a biblical mandate to christians like some preachers do. That to me is ignorance at best or lying at worst.

If Hagin gave money as first fruits, it's his money but i'm glad he affirmed in his book that first fruits to a Christian has NOTHING to do with financial giving, support for ministers or money. From that statement, its very clear he wouldn't preach it as a christian doctrine. If he did on the pulpit or in his other books after writing Midas Touch, he'll correctly be labelled as lying.

Also, I disagree with the idea of it being taught as a doctrine when it clearly isn't even as I disagree with the notion that it is Mosaic in form and practice. Abel gave firstfruits to God. God asked Abraham for his 'firstfruits' of some sorts (Isaac), Jesus was God's firstfruit, King Mesha gave his firstfruit (his son) to God and it was honoured. I believe it is just a principle like when people give gifts to their parents even if the said Parents are far richer than their kids.

That's my take.

I'm glad you disagree with teaching it as a doctrine. However, It is purely Mosaic in form and practice. There is no scripture to support the notion that Abel gave first fruits offering or that Abraham was giving first fruits offering when he laid Isaac on the altar (infact churches prefer to use this to preach giving your all -mainly money and other material resources- to God). Also on the issue of King Mesha, i'm sure you remember he was the pagan king of a pagan Moab who were worshipping Molech?

2 Kings 3:27
Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land

are you saying he did human sacrifice to God as first fruits offerings and God accepted it and stopped his chosen people from utterly defeating the moabites?

Also, are you saying God gave us first fruits offering? We are talking of first fruits offering, not just any first fruits. My first child is obviously the first fruits from my loins. The first salary i received when i started work is the first fruits of my working career. i have other first fruits as well but we are not talking of those.

I have not read anywhere on this forum where BabaGnoni said something about Eve having sex with Satan/serpent. Since I am not he I cannot deny the fact that he said it. What I expect, however, is that those who accuse him should provide the links where he said those things. This is our position also on WoF. We say they teach false doctrine/practices and we provide evidence; including the very offending one of Kenneth Hagin laughing hysterically in the name of laughing in the spirit.

So as not to derail the thread further, please open a new thread, provide the BabaGnoni quote and let him come and defend himself there. I request Gombs to provide the link he found there. We are all Gentlemen and save for differences in doctrines, we should be sincere Christians with a sensitivity to tell the truth. I am also certain that BBG will go to that thread and explain himself. If he is wrong, I hope he will take the correction and hopefully be a step ahead of all these WoF preachers who never seem to accept correction, including these ones enumerated in the Midas Touch book.

mbaemeka:
If you could read you would have seen it.

WinsomeX:
I have not read anywhere on this forum where BabaGnoni said something about Eve having sex with Satan/serpent. Since I am not he I cannot deny the fact that he said it. What I expect, however, is that those who accuse him should provide the links where he said those things. This is our position also on WoF. We say they teach false doctrine/practices and we provide evidence; including the very offending one of Kenneth Hagin laughing hysterically in the name of laughing in the spirit.

So as not to derail the thread further, please open a new thread, provide the BabaGnoni quote and let him come and defend himself there. I request Gombs to provide the link he found there. We are all Gentlemen and save for differences in doctrines, we should be sincere Christians with a sensitivity to tell the truth. I am also certain that BBG will go to that thread and explain himself. If he is wrong, I hope he will take the correction and hopefully be a step ahead of all these WoF preachers who never seem to accept correction, including these ones enumerated in the Midas Touch book.

Someone was dishonest enough to edit his post, but someone has already quoted him! Opssss

please, after clicking, take your discussion elsewhere, BabaGnoni, you owe some folks an apology

Now, you have evidence, tell him to open a thread as you said and explain himself there, I hooe he takes correction, something hard for your camp!
Can we stick to the book now?

Gombs:
Someone was dishonest enough to edit his post, but someone has already quoted him! Opssss

please, after clicking, take your discussion elsewhere, BabaGnoni, you owe some folks an apology

Now, you have evidence, tell him to open a thread as you said and explain himself there, I hooe he takes correction, something hard for your camp!
Can we stick to the book now?

Gombs, don't blame anyone for derailing your thread from now on bc you just rejected a suggestion for you to open a thread on this issue and you choose to continue the discuss.

That said, please do one more thing for me, provide the link you claim BabaGnoni edited. The link nannymcphee copied the quote from.

@nannymcphee, did you quote BabaGnoni or you simply provided a statement under his name following the accusations leveled against him by Bidam and mbaemeka? Please, be honest about this; we will all stand to give account of our words before God one day.