₦airaland Forum

@4Him,

Oga Tayo i bow sir . . . thou knowest who i am. But much respect . . . let us go through your riposte.

Is this Davidylan? Dem don ban you again? Wetin happen this time? By the way, I read your article and some comments about Creflo Dolar, and I can't but disagree with you. You argue from one perspective without looking at the entire picture. If this is indeed Davidylan, I'll probably try and respond to your article with an email.

Oga i could not type a response for a good 3 mins . . . i rolled off my bed in laughter. Just a question sir . . . in what way does a church using tithes and "offerings" to build a university that is way out of reach of 80% of the congregation part of "bringing growth to His kingdomm"?

Perhaps you should go there yourself and see what the difference is between the Covenant University and others. One of my wife's cousin attends the school even though I know no one in the entire extended family who attends Winners Chapel. The guy is a much different person because of that school. Young people are groomed, not only to earn a degree and start making a living, but the principles of Christ and imbimbed into them. This you cannot get in other schools. This is a school where the Word of Christ is the focus. Can you say the same about the others?

With all due respect sir . . . Jesus Christ was 12yrs old when He made this statement . . . he had neither a church no was he "bishop". Clearly when He talked of His "Father's business" He was not talking of building a giant religious complex but the "business" of salvation on the cross. This is comparing apples with oranges.

Have you found out how many people have been saved through the institutions you are so quick to condemn? Tell me, if only one person comes to the saving knowledge of the Lord through these institutions, would you wtill consider the investment worthwhile?

Frankly neither. While the church is rich majority of the people (those the bible identifies as the real church) are poor. How has the church used all the money for the gospel? By building schools (for the rich only), restaurants and purchasing private jets? If that is the measure of how the gospel is to be preached one wonders how the apostles managed behind prison walls and on donkeys.

Among Jesus' disciples, one always puts himself forward as an advocate for the poor. Guess who that was - Judas. The poor you will have always with you. There is nothing even Jesus can do about that. Private jets are tools for propagating the kingdom. Until last week, my pastors wife was away from church for about 3 weeks. She went around preaching and criss-crossing america in a car. She would have done more if she had a private jet. With a private jet, she'll have get to a meeting in one State, get a good nights sleep (instead of driving all night), then fly to her next meeting the following morning, well rested and alert. She does not have to wait to book flights that could waste her time and deprive her of much needed time to rest. Yes, private jets are tools just like your car. And by the way, Kenneth Copeland gave our church a new airplane last week. I understand that is the 18th aircraft he will be sowing. Doyou know by God's ecomonics, he will get a reward for every soul won through the use of that jet? Now that is laying up for yourslef treasures in heaven.

you are equally guilty of the very charge you lay against me. What Christ was observing in that verse was the giving of offerings to the Lord in the temple. He brought up a very valuable lesson . . . the emphasis is not on how much you have (and can give) but the state of your heart.
Today the widow wont even be allowed anywhere near Canaanland . . . remember "their God is not a poor God"

You miss my point altogether. I know what Jesus taught. I am only trying to call your attention to the fact that Jesus did not drive the people away, nor empty the treasury in that instant which is what you'd have us believe He does all the time. Please realise that Jesus' problem was not with money. If that were the case, then we have to start telling people that Jesus hates doves as well because the same passage tells us what Jesus did to those selling doves as well. Is your God poor? When you obey God's word, you will reap when you sow. Is it not the Bible that teaches that a man's harvest in life depends entirely on what he sows?

@4Him,

I just have to come in and say a few things following the way you are using the scriptures unscripturally here. I often wonder how people who have done nothing for the kingdom, nor given up so much for the kingdom have the audacity to condemn those who through by reason of fellowship and walk with God have broght growth to His Kingdom. Now to address some of the things you mentioned.

that is what you get when "churches" end up as business empires - - the den of thieves.

Jesus said He was about the "business of His Father." So church business is the Father's business.

puhleeese give me a break. They robbed banks . . . is that part of God's house too?

Whose money was stolen? In whose hands do you think the money stand a better chance of being used for the gospel - the Church or those armed robbers?

simple logic . . . when did banks become part of a church?
Did Christ patronise money changers in the temple or drove them out with whips? not logic dear . . . read your bible.

I will suggest you read your Bible too Sir. You can't use an isolated incident that teaches something else to condemn the use of money in churches. Have you forgotten Jesus sat by tand observed he temple treasury when He taught us about the widow's mite? Why didn't He drive them away then? The Ark of the Covenant, guess what it is made up of? When Jesus commanded that they who preach the gospel must be sustained through the Gospel, how do you think He intended to achieved that?

This is becoming Bishop worship. Where in the bible did the apostles sit down building business empires to make money? Was it when Paul was being shipwrecked on the way to Jerusalem or when Stephen was being stoned or with Philip being transported to meet the Ethopian eunuch? May God have mercy.

My question to you: How many times have you being shipwrecked and stoned for the sake of Christ? Is spirituality measured by the level of persecution or degree of poverty? Have you not read that Apostles were made like spectacles to the whole world? Wasn't Jesus made poor so we could become rich? Of what benefit is your poverty to God?

While Christ enjoins us to build up treasures in heaven "Bishop" is busy building his own canaanland on earth . . . when the robbers come for their share you all start calling fire and brimstone.

And how do you build up treasures in heaven? By swearing allegiance to poverty on earth? Your reward in heaven is based on so many things include your labour of love. While I have never being a member of Oyedepo's Church, I know what he has built there is purely borne out of love to meet a gaping need in the society. Tell me, when Jesus said we should occupy till He comes, are you suggesting He wanted us to be occupied with poverty?

I don't support robbery but i wont condone the misuse of Christ's name as a tool for personal aggrandisment either which is what canaanland symbolises.

Why don't you list the number of people your life as a whole has benefitted and see if your list will come up to 1/1000th. Self-centered people don't do what he does.

Back to my main point: why is a church now so rich? Why is a bank situated in a church? In the begining it was not so. Christ flogged money changers out of the premises of the temple accusing them of turning a house of prayer into a den of thieves . . . are we not witnessing the same today?

A church will be rich if they follow God's word. God's word brings prosperity and wholeness to the spirit, soul and body. Jesus' promise is that we will receive now in this lifetime, more of what we give up for Him, and in the world to come, eternal life.

Our churches have become schools, restaurants, banks and miracle houses. Is this what the saviour meant when He said we shld lay NOT for ourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust do corrupt?

If you grew up in naija, I'd like you to tell us what you think the fate of naija's educational system would have been withou the input of the various mission schools. I dare say 70% of the people here attended one missionary school or the other, so I am left wondering what your point is. As for the Bank, it is only a fool who minimises the importance of money in our world. Even Jesus said we should make friends with money, and haven't you read that the silver and gold are His?

If you'd like a debate, I'll give you one. But just so as to be sure that I am not in a debate with a hypocrite, kindly do what Jesus said literarily concerning giving ALL you have and then follow Him. That way I will know I am in a debate with someone who not only believes in poverty, but has sworn allegiance to it.

@oghos2k,

oghos2k:
aint u the one gettin really abusive now.it just amazes me how you try to twist everyone's words to suite yourself.

Twist people's words? The fact that I responded to you in kind when you called me pathetic (though uncalled for) now makes me a twister of people's words? Is it that you consider the word "pathetic" a compliment? Please try and weigh your words before you you write anything down. After weighing it, think again and consider the implications before you post. It may be that your problem is haste.

I am yet to see you make any argument, line upon line, presept upon precept. Maybe when you do so, I will try and lecture you better on what you do not know about the topic. So far, I have not seen any scholarship in opposition to 'tongues', only biases based on predisposition. I have thrown out a challenge earlier. Please respond to it if you feel you know better. Here is the challenge again: "You can't build a doctrine on just a single event. Collate other scriptures about tongues in the New Testament and come back and tell us what you've found. Maybe you should begin by showing us other instances where tongues was spoken with unbelievers able to hear what the believers said apart from what we see in Acts 2."

@Oghos2k,

oghos2k:
ure so pathetic @Tayo-D

I have come to understand that it takes less intelligence to abuse people than to provide a logical and factually based argument to support one's opinion. The fact that you chose the former is an eloquent testimony to how intellectually bankrupt you are. This forum is for those who want to rub minds with others while learning from each other. Intellectual cretins like you who feel intimidated when confronted with contrary opinion will do well to just watch from the stands.

skyone:
Also through the ministry he head, he has imparted and redeemed the life of billions in an acceptable way of the Lord, whereby the poor are getting rich, the sick are getting ill, convenants are being broken all Glory be to Jehovah.

The sick are getting ill? I absolutely want none of that!!!!

@Kuns,

Pentecostalists claim that when the Holy Spirit comes to you, you speaking in tongues, or Glossolalia. Glossolalia comes from the Greek word Glossa and it literally means, "tongue." They claim the "lord" is passing a message through them. I have no qualms with this, if the Holy Spirit is truly bestowed upon them. One may be blessed with the divine gift of speaking in tongues (languages).

It appears you are gradually changing your stance. In any case, speaking in tongues is for personal edification, asn so your statement in bold is contrary to scripture 1 Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; Interpretation of tongues is necessary when you are passing a message across to the Church, and that is why Paul said you speak by 2 or 3, with interpretation (just like prophecy). The aim is for everything to be done in order.

Yet, Pentecostalists don't speak in other tongues. Instead, they fall out on the floor and start babbling and muttering, while moaning and talking undecipherable mumbo-jumbo.

Well, in Acts 2, we were told that witnesses accused the Disciples of being drunk. Doesn't that imply they probably were falling out on the floor as you described above? isn't this the way a drunken behave?

@kuns,

I think you need to do some Bible study to understand tongues a bit better. You can't build a doctrine on just a single event. Collate other scriptures about tongues in the New Testament and come back and tell us what you've found. Maybe you should begin by showing us other instances where tongues was spoken with unbelievers able to hear what the believers said apart from what we see in Acts 2.

@topic,

I just read through some things which I think should be clarified.

Worship is about letting go of one self for the glorification of another

Who is the "another" being worshipped? is God the object of the worship or the sexual partner. You need to make this clarification.

Even in christianity, the idea of sex between a man and a woman is meant to represent the unison between God and man, two becoming one indivisible.

Actually, it only shows the unison between Christ and His body, the Church. These are two different things. While marriage points directly to headship, sex points directly to oneness. The husband and his wife are not one until they have sex. Please consider Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. The cleaving here is a reference to sex. Oneness occurs only after sex - 1 Cor 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

@Pilgrim1,

Ma broder, try as hard as I may, I really can't say exactly with any measure of authority that the verse was saying Anna did not have sex all the time she lived with her husband!

I think that verse is very clear. Anna got married a virgin and was with her husband for 7 years until his death. That don't even remotely suggest anything about them not having sex. Let's look at other translations of that verse Luke 2:36

Douay-Rheims - She was far advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity.

NLT - She was a widow, for her husband had died when they had been married only seven years.

NIV - She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,

WNT - She was of a very great age, having had after her maidenhood seven years of married life,

@oghos2k,

i think u should ask yourself what kind of tongues the apostles spoke in.

There are probably 3 different kinds of tongues identified by the NT. The first is the divers kind of tongues in Acts 2 - this is the tongue of men understood by those who speak the language. The second is the tongue of angels, and the third is the regular prayer tongue that no man understands except God.

They spoke in languages other people around can understand and not just some crazy noise u hear ;people screaming and no one can make a meaning from.

This is true if only you are refering to Acts 2. Paul said in 1 Cor 14:2 - For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

also, in Icor 14:27, it says if people want to speak in tongues in the church, they can and they must not be more than 2 or 3. and they must speak in turn. Thats one after the other. They must also have someone to interpret what they are saying else, they should keep silent and not disturb the church.

Your quotation is right while your application is wrong. Paul's purpose for saying this was to bring order in a congregational worship. He virtually commanded the same thing for those who speak in prophecy (usually in known language) - 1 Cor 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. So you see, the same rule that applies to those who speak in tongues apply to those who don't. This passage is mainly talking about order and not forbiding [eoaple from speaking in tongues.

So tongue is something other people can understand and also interpret so let us all stop decieveing ourselves that the holy spirit is making us say nonsence because thats even blasphemy.K?The holy spirit doesnt work that way.

Aint you contradicting yourself! If tongues is something people can understand, why then does it need to be interpreted? tongues may sound as nonsense to you, and that is okay, Paul confirmed the same thing - 1 Cor. 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

@noetic,

I m sorry I never replied sooner.

That's okay.

what u have failed to do is clearly define in your own words what the spirit is.[/b]because to be honest with u, I have defined the spirit and so also have others, and in applying this same scriptures with that of apostle paul, it is obvious that they refered to certain attributes of man that clearly makes him whole and not a seprate entity refered to as spirit.

I have clearly defined the spirit as the real man. The body is only a covering, a tent as Apostle Peter puts it in 2 Peter 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as [b]I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 

The spirit is not an attribute, it is aware and self sustaining, even outside of the body. That is why Paul could say he went to heaven and wasn't sure if it was in the body or outside of the body. That shows that the spirit is absolutely aware outside of the body because the man that was caught up to heaven heard several things - 2 Cor. 12:13. The body is just a tent, it is nothing but dust and can be put off and on. It is an outside covering necessary to live on this earth. The spirit on the other hand has a body which can exist in heaven 2 cor 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: Who is to be clothed in heaven? the body? No. It is the real man, the spirit.

no. the spirit of man refers to certain attributes man pocesses. spirit (pneuma) the human mind, instincts and personal convictions. our ability to analyse,reason and comprehend, but u must observe, like u noted above that the breadth of live was one of the biblibically explicitly stated ingridients that God used to make man a living being. the spirit was not mentioned in this context.

The spirit of man is no attribute. You are expressing the characteristics of a man's soul, and not his spirit. I explained it further down that james made things clearer in the NT. The Bible is line upon line, a little here, a little there. Because the full explanantion is not found in Genesis does not mean you are left without interpretation in other passages.

if thats the case, the bible never said the breadth of life has a form or kind. it was just the breadth of GOD. so we agree that the spirit is a part of man that is formless and bodiless. so this way it cannot outlive man to ascend to heaven.

If the spirit of man cannot outlive man to live in heaven who are those refered to as the spirits of just men made perfect who are in heaven as we speak - Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, You have consistenelty avoided this scripture every time I refer to it. Are you going to explain it away?

how?

We are told that the body is dead without the spirit. So it is only logical to conclude that the only reason why Adam's body came to life is because the spirit came into it. Zechariah 12:1 - This is the word of the Lord concerning Israel. The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declaresSince we are not told when God formed Adam's spirit in Genesis, it is only reasonable to conclude that it took place when God breadth into him because he came to life at that point. Remember, if there was no spirit, the body won't come to life.

i don't understand u. whats the diffence according to u between the soul and spirit the first and last Adam lived by? did the last Adam not also expirience pain, suffering, hunger, afflictions? was He not humiliated? was He not subject to the limitations and rules of nature? did He not cry and die like the first adam? are these things not physical afflictions limited to man? so how did He live His life tru d spirit?

The diffference is that the first Adam wasn't guided as it were by his spirit. He lived a soulish life and everything was done through reason. That is why when Satan tempted them, the Bible said Eve gave consideration to the devil's words by observation, reasoning and conclusion. That is a living soul at work. Decisions are made based on reason. The last Adam, and us on the other hand, aren't meant to live that way. We are meant to be led by the Spirit of God through our spirits and not through our reason (soul). Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. God's leading is through the Spirit who communicates only with our spirits. That is a huge difference. As a believer today, even though I am tempted and there is an appeal to my soul, I ignore that if it is contrary to the witness of my spirit.

the real personae is man.

So who is man? Man is spirit, just like God who made man into His likeness.

then who is man? when was his body created? and when was man created?
see please stop using primordial believes to satisfy spiritual curiosities. the bible says man was created lifeless until he pocessed the braedth of life. the bible didnt say a body was created, followed by a spirit or soul. attempting to divide a man into these three concepts, when the creation and the purpose of man`s existence does not imply this is unfortunate.

The Bible clearly delineates them. Zechariah 12:1 shows that man's body is created separately from his spirit. James testifies that the reason why Adam lay lifeless in the Garden is becuase there was no spirit in him. Paul said a man can ascend to heaven without his body. Jesus mentioned Lazarus, Abraham and the rich man who lived outside their bodies in the after life. Why you can't see this beats me.

i insist that, that was a parable and no where else was it mentioned that certain dead go abrahams bossom. to believe u, please reconcile the meaning oh hades and abrahams bossom.

Before I talk about Hades and Abraham's bossom, I'd like you to tell us why you think that was just a parable. I have expressly given my reasons why I know this is a true story based on a real event but you are yet to give yours. maybe you should start by rebutting what I wrote earlier:

1.  Jesus never mentions a name in his parables. He almost always starts his parables with the statement: the KOG is like ,

2.  Jesus used the word "certain" in describing the rich man and Lazarus. This is a definite article that indicates he had particular people in mind.  See verses 19 There was a certain rich man;  20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,. Jesus was essentially saying there was a particular rich man and  there was a particular beggar, and he even had a name.

3.  In starting this parable, Jesus began by with the phrase: "There was", which shows He was talking about an event that took place.

I have told u my opinion on this and will still go back to it on d other thread.
but to understand my view, please read the four gospels account of the call of the disciples by Jesus and explain d difference.

It is very funny that in your explanation, you mentioned that Jesus corrected the disciples that he was no spirit when he walked on water. Yet you did not carry that logic over to the time when they refered to the men that appeared with jesus on the Mt of transfiguration as Moses and Elijah. Don't you find it funny that not only did Jesus not correct them, but He went on to teach them about Elijah? 

i don't see any biblibical inscription that butresses your belief.

I have highlighted this before. God, in whose likeness man is created is spirit despite the fact that he has a soul. Why would man be different whn man possesses a spirit and a soul too?  Please explain.

based on my definition of spirit and soul i agree with u. u know y?
just like I corrected ricadelide in my last post, Heavenly beings can take up human forms if they want to. but d main reason y i really agree with u is because, angels don't accept worship, but we have seen instances where they accepted worship, like the visit to abraham and joshua. so if these beings accept worship, they definitely cannot b angels who then visited these people? your guess is as good as mine.

Angels are known in scripture to possess bodies that men can see. The angel that accepted worship is actually the Lord himself in His pre-incarnation manifestations. These are different topics altogether. And by the way, Melchizedek was an ordinary man and not an angel or heavenly being, remember, a high priest is chosen from among men - Hebrews 5:1.

sorry I am delaying my responses
cheers

@topic,

Cote d'ivoire is gradually becoming Nigeria's 21st century Cameroun!

@topic,

I don't see anything wrong with that match. Someone has to win, though the game was even ly tied. We were just unlucky as the game could have gone either way.

@ topic,

I think I'd like to start by commenting on Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Here is the New Living Translation: Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And the man became a living person.

One thing immediately jumps at us from the passage. The human body is lifeless without "the breadth of life". In actual fact, the body is dead without the spirit. See James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead .

While Genesis indicates that it is the breadth of life that made the difference between a live body or a dead one, James breaks it down even further to declare that it is actually the spirit that brings the body alive. So does that equate the breadth of life to the spirit? Not necessarily, but it suggests certain truths. These could be either one of the following:
1.  The breadth of life is the same thing as the spirit.
2.  The spirit is a subset of the breadth of life.

Now with reference to the phrase that man became "a living soul", I think the best way to understand the phrase is how its used in comparison in the NT. 1 Cor 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. A difference is made between the first and the last Adam here as to how their lives are lived through the body. The first Adam lived his life mainly through his soul while the last Adam lived His life mainly through His spirit. Both Adams have a body, a soul and a spirit, but the most dominant aspect of their being is different in each case.

The question now remains: Which is the real persona? I think this can be anwered very easily. First it is not the body since the man can exist outside of the body. (Please see the story of Lazarus and so many others in the NT that talks about those who are in the grave but alive either in Heaven, Hell or Abraham's bossom, and in the case of Moses and Elijah, on the Mt of transfiguration). The body is only necessary for him to rule and reign on the earth. I believe the real man is the spirit despite the fact that he possesses a soul.

My conslusion is partly based on the fact that though God has a soul, He is by essence a spirit. Matthew 12:18 - Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. This scripture clearly shows that God possesses a soul though He is spirit - John 4: 24 - God is a Spirit: If man therefore possess a soul and a spirit like God, and he is made in God's likeness, it can be safely concluded that he must be spirit and possess a soul like God. Otherwise what is the likeness all about?

I hope this all makes sense sha. I'll stop there for now to allow for inputs.

@topic,

Anyway, I just wanted to hear comments, questions, and of course hateful/rude responses.

It's so easy to be hateful and rude in responses because it requires very little, if any intelligence. I hope such responses become increasingly rare on nairaland.

@topic,

I just read through the 2 pages posted so far. I must say that I am with ricadelide and pilgrim1 on this. I am tempted to just siddon look and learn from all that is being posted, but a scripture that came to mind persuades me otherwise - Prov 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. So in the spirit of sharpening each other, I shall contribute my 2 cents to the topic.

@noetic,

I will oblige you and meet up in the other thread. I am glad we are moving forward with this. And may I commend your gentlemaness in the face of contradictory views.

@Bobbyaf,

I asked Pilgrim to respond to my question as to what happens to the spirit of the wicked when he/she dies. She's clueless. Like Rockiedink says the bible is its own interpreter. Instead of extrapolating we need to simply accept what it says. If it says the dead are asleep then lets accept that.

Perhaps you should read through Luke 16. the story of Lazarus should fill you in on what happens to the unrighteous dead. If you are really interested in letting the Bible interprete itself, then you will accept that in hell, they will open their eyes when they die.

If you'd like to argue with the passage, then we'll provide you with more evidence.

@noetic,

If we however don’t stick to the basic relevant issues, we will never get it straight. We would only be gallivanting if we don’t stick to the basics. We all know certain tins in d bible, but shouldn’t relate it to all issues. It’s a gimmick by Muslims, who often run out of ideas.

While you are right, not everything is that simplistic. For instance, if I answered that dead saints are in heaven, someome who does not know that man is not his body will point to the grave and tell me that I am wrong because of the bones we still see there. A lack of understanding that man is not the body that we see will make anyone jump to that conclusion.

Ok. But this issue in my opinion is wrongly taught in most churches.

I'm glad you admit its your opinion. Just curious, how many churches have you attended and how many preachers have you listened to talk about this topic for you to make such a conclusion?

Are we talking about the same luke16?

Absoultely. here is my response to someone about this chapter a while back.

I have stated before that this is not a parable but a lesson of history. Here are some reasons why I hold to this belief:

1. Jesus never mentions a name in his parables. He almost always starts his parables with the statement: the KOG is like ,

2. Jesus used the word "certain" in describing the rich man and Lazarus. This is a definite article that indicates he had particular people in mind. See verses 19 There was a certain rich man; 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,. Jesus was essentially saying there was a particular rich man and there was a particular beggar.

3. In starting this parable, Jesus began by with the phrase: "There was", which shows He was talking about an event that took place.

No its not. Cos like Jesus said in john3vs13, no one is in heaven yet.
Abraham was used because of the isrealites respect for him as a friend of God. And he said rich and poor because of the living conditions and differences between d leaders of those days n d masses. Or are u also insinuating that wealth is a yardstick for Christ`s judgement?

I don't know how you came about your insinuation. In any case, Abraham's bossom is not heaven. It was located next to hell in the ground. this issue I have also dealt with before and will not go into it again unless you ask for more proofs.

Until u answer the questions I asked u about the spirit, I disagree with this statement.[/b]I believe I have provided you with answers earlier.

You haven’t proved this, biblibically.

1 Cor 15:35-50 35 But some man will say, [b]How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. I hope that answers your question. What happened to jesus body after the resurrection is what will happen to our bodies. it will no longer be a natural body but a spiritual one. But the fact remains that it is the same body that will be raised as we see in Jesus.

Please don’t get it wrong, the account of the gospel where moses and Elijah were seen with Jesus is according to the disciples. They could have been wrong. Y?
1).Wen Jesus was seen walking on water, they thought it was a ghost, If Jesus had not told them He was the one and asked peter to come along, the biblibical account would have been they a ghost on water.
2). Moses and Elijah lived thousands of years before the time of Jesus, how then did the disciples recognise them? The jewish tradition forbade worship with pictoral images, how then did they know what this prophets look like?
3) Jesus said in john3vs13 no one has gone to heaven.
Perhaps they had seen the elders of heaven, refered to in revelation.

You are so wrong I could scream. They actually saw Moses and Elias. Why are you just making up stories to prove yourself right? why would Jesus ask them to keep what they've seen to themselves until He rose from the dead? Why would He want them to propagate a falsehood? Why would He then tell them some more about Elijah when they kept asking Him questions that is borne out of the experience on the Mt of transfiguration?

As to how they were recognised, it is very possible that Jesus told them or they perceived it in the spirit. The biblical account account mentioned that what they first saw was Jesus and two men standing by His side. It was only when the men were gone that the disciples said anything. besides, Luke confirmed in his accout that the men were Abraham and elia before the disciples even woke up to witness the transfiguration.

He never implied they are distinct. He only told us there is a spirit, the issue is, is it distinct from the body?

The spirit is absoultely dinstict from the body. If I may ask, who is the "I" that Paul refered to in this scripture 1 Cor 9:27 -But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, [b][/b]I myself should be a castaway. Paul clearly differentiated between the spirit and the body there.

this he never said, unless u re quoting him out of context.

pilgrim1 has called your attention to Eccl. 12 v 7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. this clearly indicates that death brings about a separation between the body and the spirit.

noetic,

Please draw a line between the body and spirit, since u claim they are distinct.
However, u cannot explicitly explain what u haven’t defined. You could start by answering what is man`s spirit?

I have said before that a man's spirit is the real man. The body becomes lifeless without it, and the spirit by all indication is eternal. The Bible says that man is created in God's image and His likeness. God's image is Christ - 2 Cor 4:4 lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. God's likeness is spirit, which is why we are told in John 4:24 - God is a Spirit. Man created in God's likeness must therefore be spirit.

I don’t know any missing vital component. As a matter of fact only you guys can answer this, since u claim man has a distinct spirit. my take is man is dead and unconscious in the grave, awaiting ressurection. this I have subsequently butressed (john3v13, acts2:29-35,Ecc9vs5) if u believe man is in the grave and also in heaven, whats the purpose of reconciling the two parts? my guess is u believe men go to heaven and also await ressurection, but u can't reconcile both.

I have mentioned the purpose of reconciling both earlier so i won't go into it again. As to dead saints being in heaven, I mentioned that to you earlier from Hebrews 10:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, Please explain away the phrase in bold. I don't believe I need to prove that their bodies are still in the grave.

To make things clearer, you need to understand that dead saints were usually taken to Abraham's Bossom before Christ. After Christ's ascension we all go to heaven. I have explained this several times on nairaland. Please check out the following if you are interested - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-8687.32.html#msg346855
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-42512.64.html#msg954861

no. I can also say answering this question has to do with other issues like the destination of righteous men, the place of the dead Hades, often translated in the bible as Hell or the venue of eternal life like recadelide submitted in his recent post that

. they are all connected one way or the other. Now I need to make soem things clear which isn't evident from my link above. Dead saints before the ascension of Christ were kept in Abraham's bossom because though they were righteous, their spirits were not yet perfected without the church Hebrews 11:40 - God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. When Christ arose and brought them justification, their spirits were perfected and they were raised with Him to heaven. It is the spirits of these men that the people of Jerusalem saw - Matthew 27;52-53. Hebrews 10:22 -23 that I quoted above tells us that the spirits of these just men that have been perfected are now in heaven.

noetic,

i never concurred with u on this. in your first post u mentioned a "spirit" in heaven and a body ressurecting to meet it. and my questionswere, whats the purpose of this body meeting this spirit? is the spirit incomplete in heaven? are these biblibical facts?

To answer your question, we will need to delve into various things, but with the danger of sidetracking from the main topic imminent, I will try and just highlight salient points.  A man's body is very necessary for him to influence what happens on earth. Your physical body is like your passport, without which you will have no right to live and influence the earth. We have a earthly body and an heavenly body 2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.As Christians, we have been given dual nationalities - heaven and earth. The body we have before the resurrection is determined by whether we live on earth or heaven. The physical body for those alive and the spiritual body for those who are now in heaven with Christ.

This is the reason why demons are always so eager to possess a man's body because they can't be influential on earth until they have a man's body. Same thing with God, He needs our bodies to be influential on earth because the earth he has already goven to the sons of men. In Jesus, we have seen the extent of God's influence on earth when a human body is completely under His control, and in the antichrist we will see the full extent of the influence of the devil when a human body is under his control. That is perhaps the main reason why the devil tempted Jesus and promised Him the entire kingdom of the world if he bows to him. While Jesus declined, the antichrist would not.

In one of your early posts u said: "When Adam died in the Garden, his spirit was separated from God" I am yet to see this in the bible. Was Adam dwelling with God initially in the spirit?

I am curious, what do you think happened to Adam when he ate that fruit? I think you've suggested earlier that the devil lied to him and he really did not die. If that is really your stand, you are gravely mistaken. Adam actually died spiritually separating him from God. Scriptures? Try 1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

then answer this is there any biblibical expression where the body and the spirit did differnt things at the same time, since they are distinct?

The spirit can exist outside of the body. There are several pointers to this in scripture. these scripture have been pointed out to you eralier. Please check out 2 Cor 12: 2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth Here Paul definitely implies that it is possible for the spirit to ascend to heaven outside of the body. We know apostle John also ascended to heaven out of his body Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.John was commanded to come up to heaven and immediately he was in the spirit.

But If u insist on this distinct “spirit”, lets then examine this scenario.
I sat for an exam, and didn’t write well in the exam, for just no reason, because I know d course in question and read well for it. After the exam, I exclaimed to my friends that “my spirit is troubled” apparently because of how the exam went. Whats the basis of the statement? Is this statement “my spirit is troubled” valid or invalid? Yes or no

People use the words spirit very loosely. But really, the spirit is the real man, and there is nothing wrong in saying "my spirt is troubled." Now look at it this way, at the judgement, we are told that everyman will receive the rewards for the things they did in their bodies 2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.. This implies that though it is our bodies that we see doing different things, it is the spirit man - the real man that receives the reward. That is why Paul says in 1 Cor 9:27 But [b]I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.[/b] here Paul distinguishes between his body and his spirit "I." It is the spirit, the real man that is in charge and will receive the reward for whatever is done in the body.

@davidylan,

I hear so many people asking how marriages were conducted in the bible 4000 years ago and i wonder . . . based on that fact shld we now start marrying our cousins too like Isaac and co did?

Actually, the lessons learnt from those mariages is that God expects us as NT believers to marry only within His family - the Church. We are forbidden to marry unbelievers in as much as they were forbidden to marry people outside of Abraham's covenant.

@noetic,

Tayo-D mad refrence to the spirit, but did not deviate from the issue, that way I was willing to debate deep with him. he raised intellectual biblibical questions about spiritual beliefs, which I was ready to disscuss or debate out, but the moment he made refrence to your post as his stand, then I felt it was over. because yours was a whole diversion of the relevant issues. none the less I commend your biblibical expertise.

This topic is about the fate of Christains when they die. We've all agreed so far that death is nothing but a separation. We've also all agreed so far that it is the physical body component of the dead saints that is still in the grave. So the question is, where is the other vital component that makes up the whole man when they were still walking amongst us? To answer this question, it is absolutely necessary to know the make-up of man. This was the basis that ricadelide was establishing and I totally think this topic cannot be rightly dealt with without us establishing that truth. If everyone just wants to come her and thump their belief in other's faces, then we'd all just say one thing or the other without anyone gaining anything. However, to establish this truth, we will have to go line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here and a little there. That's the way I was brought up in Christ. My pastor sometimes spends up to 2 years teaching on one particular topic becuase he really deals with it. That way, we all have a full understanding and not just voicing what is the opionion of another.

now I c y u are getting it all wrong. luke 16`s rich man was in refrence to a parable, which doesnt imply direct communication with God. I can't believe u said this.

Luke 16 is not a parable. It is a story of real events. How many parables did Jesus teach while mentioning peopl's names? Every time Jesus mentioned anyone's name in the NT, you can be sure it is tied to real events. His talk about, Moses, Jonah, Elijah etc were based on real events. This one with Abraham is true as well.

you need to re-examine my explanation of the spirit. you are proposing a distinct nature of man to the body, a far cry from my position.

The spirit of man is very much dinstict from his body. this has been established time and time again. The body of the dead saints are still in the grave and will not be up before the resurrection. That is what the resurrection is all about - a reconciliation of the body and the spirit. The spirits of dead saints have been seen before as in the case of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, as well as those seen in Jerusalem after Jesus rose from the dead. This is not the same as resurrection. Resurrection hasn't taken place at all, and paul wanrs of the danger of thoswe who taught that the resurrection is past - 2 Tim 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

In summary, death is a separation. And according to Paul in 1 Thess 5:23, the spirit, soul and body are distinct and there is a separation between these at death.

@pilgrim1,

Anything remain to claim from these titles?? --

Yeah, the guy omitted HIV.

topic,

SHREK 1 & 2 are just too hilarious. Part 3 doesn't measure up.

Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Madea goes to jail, Meet the Browns, I can do bad all by myself etc. Infact, all Tyler Perry's films are rib crackers. He is a combination of the comic of Eddie Murphy and the wisdom of Bill Cosby.

Wedding Crashers is one of my favorites ever. I just love Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn.

Jackie Chan's movies still crack my ribs till date.

Bedazzled qwith Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth Hurley.

@noetic,

@pilgrim and tayo-d

you have successfully deviated from this beautiful thread. both of you promised to bombard us with biblibical analyses of what I and bobbyaf are not getting on this ressurection issue.

I never said anything about bomnbardment. I do not talk like that. Well, I see no reason why I should add any more to what ricadelide has eloquently expressed. He expresses my thoughts vey clearly and articlately. If this was a personality contest, then I'll feel the need to chip in and make this all about verbosity. But since it is about issues that others have adequately addressed, then I can only add if and when necessary.

like I said, stop applying logic, use biblibical context.

You will do well to take your own advice. Scriptures you refered to are out of context and ricadelide has done well to present his case line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here and a little there.

Like I told you before, to avoid any mix-ups, it is good to make your points very clear. What are the issues? Are you saying there is no conciousness in the grave? What do you consider the destination of the dead? What are your views about resurrection? Highlight each point and let's take it up from there.

I believe ricadelide has started at the very basic by discussing the make up of man. Are you in agreement with what he wrote or not. Understanding man's make up is one of the vital keys to dealing with this topic.

@rockiedink,

", and I think I have the mind of Christ"

Are you sure you do? Coming here and boasting: (whom by the way I can teach a great deal from the scripture - in this I do not lie), is not an evidence of a humble mind, but one who does not know yet as he ought to know - 1 Corinthians 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

@pilgrim1,

Yes and No - your submission here is either way. From a "biblical stand point", the traditional thingy is not valid. But so does the traditionalist argue, because from his own "stand point", the CHURCH thingy is NOT valid!

This thread has kept us chatty in the office (break time). Trust us women, our mouths talk this and that!  Someone silenced the rest of us when he finally asked (after a long silence, listening to us):

       Abeg una well-well, which Church did Abraham wed Sarah before im own valid?

He just smiled and promptly left the staff room!

Which one be di yes and no now? The word of God is yes and by us the Amen is spoken.

To those who believe that the marriage is only recognised by God when done in a church, does that mean all married unbelievers who have never stepped in a church are fornicators? Absolutely not.

The important thing in marriage is that the one in authority hands over the authority to another. In this instance, a man leaves and is removed from the authority of his parents, and the woman's parents hand her over to the man. That is why Genesis tells us that a man must leave his father and mother. As for the woman, we saw God bringing and handing over Eve to Adam, thus relinquishing his fatherly authority to Eve. When this two are done, a marriage has taken place.

@adekennis,

What does kiss mean

It's an acronym for [b]K[/b]eep [b]I[/b]t [b]S[/b]imple [b]S[/b]tupid!

@Guk,

Talking about this, how do you avoid the Toilet Water splashing on your bum when you drop a "grenade?"

Oh my God! I'm reeling with laughter here. But why do you have to say this when I am trying to have my lunch! You won't ruin my appetite, I no go gree!!

@ricadelide,

A very good job you've done there. I was just going to come back and make a few statement, but you've covere it already.

I was going to refer to Mark 12:27 - He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken This alone should jettison any thought that those who died in faith are in one unconscious state as noetic and bobbyaf want us to believe. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

Also you refered to the story of Lazarus which makes it clear that when a righteous man or sinner dies, they will be consious though there destinations are different. How clearer can these be?!

@debosky,

you forgot supper, midday tea, midnight snack, late morning cake, post-siesta refreshment. . .the list goes on and on!

This reminds me of a card my wife gave me some time ago. It read something like this: I give you kisses for breakfast; more kisses and hugs for lunch; and a hot and steamy sex for dinner - Never let me catch you eating outside!!!!!!!!!

The whole thing is still unfolding. I am pursuing it from various angles till we discover who is the major culprit who infringed on the copyights by mass-producing it.

A willful violator like the website that shows the movie online could be liable to at least $100,000, while the small shops that carry them and sell them could be liable for up to $10,000.

I am definitely going after the websites so as to get to the root cause. If the websites don't take the movie down after being warned, then we could have the service providers deny them hosting. This is part of the law here in the US.

Let me know what you can do about hooking me up with the few stores you got out there. We got few Nigerians here but a lot of Liberians who love naija movies too. By the way, have you seen the movie in Boston?