₦airaland Forum

@topic,

What we are told to beware of is the LOVE of Money and not Money itself. We are informed to be content with whatsoever we have and not be greedy. Being rich or poor does not equate to contentment!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with riches. Is it not the same Paul who told us that it is God who gives us ALL good things to enjoy? 1 Timothy 6:17 - Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; And the first part of that verse indicates that God has not problem with rich Christinas. His problem is highmindedness and a trust in riches. If you can handle riches without all these vices, you will be a more influential Christian than you will be without money.

@topic,

It is so unfortunate that she died just like that. I hope her own shildren won't suffer the safe fate that began with her father.

@babasin,

Was it the US that pulled the trigger that killed her? When are we going to start holding responsible those who carry out such attrocities and stop blaming circumstances presumably created by the US or others? what does the US stand to gain from her death? She was pro-US to the core!

@Bobbyaf,

You have only repeated the sdame thing so far without a valid opoint.

Coming with a tongue is not the issue Tayod. I am not debating whether or not there is a gift of tongue. The expression "hath a tongue" means hath a language, but as to whether that language is some ecstatic or heavenly language is what I challenge. The tongue that Paul addresses in this chapter is certainly not such a language

You sure are very funny. If the tongue spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:6 is just a person's native language, how is it then different from a regular prophecy? Or why would Paul mention an interpretation within the same sentence if this isn't a language that requires a spiritual gift of interpretation to be understood? Your arguments are becoming very tedious at best.

Paul wished for a lot of things. Notice the human control mechanisms involved when this tongue was in play. The operative word is "if". This was never a regular experience, but if and when somone spoke with tongues, he had to ensure that what he said was interpreted for the benefit of the congegration

There is human control to every manifestation of the Spirit. How else then will Paul declare that the spirit of a Prophet is subject to the Prophet? God never forces anyone to do anything, and speaking in other tongues is not different. The operative word "if" does not mean it is meant not to happen but he describes how it should operate in the instance that tongues is operational in a service. This is turning to a case of "how readest thou".

The fact is the kind of tongues that manifest in modern churches today are not the same ones that manifested back then. Today congregants are instructed to aspire to speak in tongues. Paul said strive for those gifts that edify the body which was quite the opposite.

The truth is tongues is just as edifying to the body as prophecy is whenver there is an interpretation. This much I have made clear earlier from 1 Cor 14:5.

Well 1 Corinthians 13 was meant for the very same congregation wasn't it Tayod? Chapter 14 is merely an extension of 13. Using the gifts without love is a sure sign of self-aggrandisement. Any gift used outside of love is used for self interest. Paul saw the potential evil and saught to nip it in the bud

You are very funny. Love is needed irrespective of the manifestation of any gifts of the Spirit or otherwise. That love is essential does not diminish the importance of tongues. Simply put in the words of Jesus: "This you ought to do without leaving the other undone.

I am afraid they are the very same thing with varying circumstances

Tongues and divers kind of tongues are not the same. One is understood and the other is not understood unless there is the manifestation of the gift of interpretation.

The circumstances were different and had to be handled as such. Pentecost had bigger implications and became a launchpad for the last opportunity that was afforded Israel as a nation. Based on prophetic understanding the time for the ending of probation, that is, the 490 years or 70 symbolic weeks in Daniel 9 was fast coming to an end. The two great symbols of wind and fire were once again being used by God to make one final attempt to convince Israel that indeed Christ was His Son who died for Israel and was resurrected. So in essence the need to have understood the gift of tongues then by His own people the jews had far greater reasons, than they were having in Corinth

This is how people confuse others about the scriptures. See how you are just saying irrelevant things so as to suistain your unscriptural stance. What circumstances are you alluding to that makes tongues different then than it is today? What about other gifts of the Spirit? Are all those done away with too becuase of circumstances that exists only in your mind? The only time that the gifts of the Spirit will be done away with is when the perfect shall come, and all that remain is LOVE. Until then, every gift of the Spirit is as relevant then as it is today. and by the way, you commited some theological error with the 490 weeks. it wasn't fast coming to an end, but was already ended at Pentecost. So Pentecost was God's final attempt to convince Isreal that Christ is their Messiah? Men, we should all quit preaching to the Jews then since God has given up on them according to the "Gospel" of Bobbyaf.

The urgency of evangelism and the infancy of the church called for a greater purpose of the gift then. As time progressed and congregations were established in asia minor, and on other continents by Paul and others the need and manner of use for the gift experienced a change. While the gift didn't die as such, it still lingered among those who had it, but unfortunately, some used it for self interest

You are so funny. So evangelism is less urgent now than it was then? Please show us how people use the tongue for selfish interest. That it was being used disorderly does not mean it is used selfishly. Infact, the Corinthians were using it thinking of blessing the congregation, but Paul told them it wasn't right. Until there is interpretation, it doesn't benefit the Church bu only the individual. Their intentions were definitely noble though their actions were uninformed.

See my explanation above. A congregation is way different than a 3000 or more mass gathering.

How are they different? You are beginning to clutch on straws here.

See my response immediately above your question

You have not responded to this question at all. Here again is my question: how do you reconcile that in one place Paul teaches that tongues are meant as a sign to unbelievers and in another case he says that tongues are for personal edification?

As far as the word is concerned the word tongue means one thing and that is language. You and I differ on how one sees the use of the word, and how it should be applied in any congregation of worship

Of course the tongue is a language. The question differnece is that one language can only be understood by God, and the other can be understood by men. Is this too difficult to grasp? Our diffenreces is that while you say that tongues are irrelevant today, I take Paul's side when he said "everyone hath a tongue when we come together as a congregation," and that the purpose of tongues and interpretation and other manifestation of the Spirit is for everyone to be edified. The same Paul teaches that one to three people can speak in tongues in order while someone else interpretes. If tongues were that unimportant why is God grateful to God that he speaks in tongues more than anybody else?

They might have understood Hebrew no doubt, but when Peter spoke they heard their native language other than Hebrew. That was indeed what made them marvel. These were jewish people who lived outside of Jerusalem, and the bible says they came from 16 nations. In fact it named the region they came from.

Now you are begining to be ridiculous. You mean Peter was speaking in tongues when he addressed the 3,000? You are joking right? so tell me, when they responded to Peter that "what shall they do" were they also speaking in tongues? You need to go back and read Acts 2 again. I will not indulge your ignorance by recounting the story here.

As I said Paul wished for many things. Obviously christians today only desire to pray in the spirit but without understanding, , Ask anyone who speaks in tongues today if he or she understands what they are praying about, and majority of them will tell you no. So Paul if anything is agreeing with me

What you have failed to say is the fact that Paul said he would that they all prophesy in the same sentence. Are we to do away with prophesying too then? Thre is nothing wrong with praying in the Spirit as long as you do not address the congrgation without an interpretation. Do you realise that Prophecy is meant for edification and comfort while tongues is meant for edification. The tongues becomes prophecy when it is interpreted. I pray in tongues a lot and I'm edified. The time I've had to address a congregation in tongues, my friend interpreted my tongue. It was a prophecy concerning another one of our friends. I don't know if you've ever being in a believers' meeting, but there is none that I have attended where somone brought a message in tongues without an interpretation following.

Tell that to those congregations who make it look as if something is wrong with those who haven't yet spoken in tongues. Why keep telling people that the gift is a sign of being Holy-Spirit filled. What do you expect newly converts to do if they are constantly pressured into speaking in tongues

Like someone was said: the gift of the infilling with the evidence of speaking in tongues is a gift meant for everyone that our God has called. If that is not the case, Paul will not be wishing that we all speak in tongues contrary to God's will. I have asked you to go theough the book of acts and show u swhere anyone got filled with the Holy Spirit without the evidence of speaking in tongues. Please do that or hold your peace.

Paul didn't say pray in tongues. He uses the word speak in verse 2. In verses 13-15 Paul said:,

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Considering the statement in bold, I just wonder if you are reading what you are writing.

So does it make sense to pray to God in tongues when not even you can understand?

Like Paul said, it is a man's spirit that is praying when tongues is in use. Other than that, you are just praying with your mind. Tell me which one will be more effective, your regenerated spirit or your carnally-tainted mind?

Then how come Paul stresses the need to pray with understanding?

Paul did not put an emphasis on one over the other. Infact he stressed the importance of doing both. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

I mean if everyone is praying in tongues at the same time wouldn't that lead to confusion in the congregation

That is why Paul wrote: 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. It is all about order like I indicated before.

As I have alluded to before the circumstances were far different

What circumstances? You still haven't told us what they were.

Only if the circumstances were right. Its the circumstances that dictate the use of gifts like tongue. Paul once wished that we become like him vis a vis being celebate. Would you by virtue of Paul's ideals become celebate? I guess the catholics have a point heh!

The circumstance where Paul desires everyone be like him was due to the crisis of persecution and death where widows are becoming younger and younger by the day among the Christian folk. And you forgot to mention that Paul later said it was his opinion and not a directive from God. In this case, his wish was both for speaking in tongues and prophecy and he never claims it was his opinion.

Go read Acts 10. The bible says he was a god-fearing man who led his household in like manner. Is that proof enough?

I knew you'd fall for this. Cornelius wan't a Christian at the time period you want me to look into. So he couldn't have had Agape, which is the love refered to in 1 Cor 13. The best form of love he exhibited then weas at best Phileo. Unless you want to tell us that unbelievers too have the potential to express a nature inherent with godlikeness - AGAPE. Also, I never read that Paul asked or confirmed if the Ephesian Disciples walked in love before he laid hands on them to receive the infilling of the Holy spirit and the subsequent gift of speaking in tongues.

@Bobbyaf,

You have missed Paul's gist to the Corinthians altogether. He was by no means de-emphasising the use of tongues in the local assembly, else why would he say in 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. If anything he is encouraging its use. That is why he mentioned that he wishes everyone could speak in tongues. The gist of 1 Corinthians 14 is order and not self-aggrandisement as you have said. 1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints Don't take the liberty to add to what is not expressed or even implied in the passage.

I have done that quite a few times. I want you to notice how the expression "spoke in tongues" is used freely, and would still be understood as meaning "diverse kinds of tongues"

Your conclusion isn't scriptural at all. Tongues do not necessarily imply divers kind of tongues. Divers kind of tongues means it is a language that man understands. That is diametrically opposed to Paul's statement that: 1 Cor.14: 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; Men understood the Disciples on Pentecost and they required no interpretation of the tongue. These are two different things altogether.

So Cornelius and other gentiles who became christians were subject to the same promise of recieving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were also entitled to recieving the gift of tongues to facilitate their missionary efforts as well.

My question is if Cornelius and the early Church needed the gift then, why should God deny us to whom He has promised the former and the latter rain together? Is their missionary work different than ours or we no longer have a language barrier as they did?

In Acts 2 the diasporic jews who came from about 16 different nations, each having their unique tongue, marvelled when they heard the apostles speaking in their language. That was the initial purpose of the gift in breaking the language barrier so that the kingdom message could reach many with greater urgency.

First I do not know where you came up with 16 nations, and secondly if we go by your logic that tongues are just to break down a language barrier, then  Paul must have been mistaken saying that  He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself! So who do we believe, you or Paul?

Further more, how do you reconcile that in one place Paul teaches that tongues are meant as a sign to unbelievers and in another case he says that tongues are for personal edification? Please explain that to us in clear terms. The answer is actually very simple. He was talking about two different kinds of tongues as I mentioned before.

The gift being a miracle itself facilitated that process.

The gift was nothing more than a sign. Pray tell, if the tongues was just to break down a language barrier, then why would Peter need to stand up and address the whole congregation in one language? The people who were at Pentecost understood Hebrew and so you cannot claim there was a language barrier. They all understood Peter when he spoke.

I am not sure there is a thing called prayer tongue. The only scripture that alludes to it is that found in 1 Cor. 14, and this is how Paul puts it. Besides, if anything Paul is de-emphasising it.

There are more scriptures that refer to the prayer tongue than 1 Cor 14. And again, Paul is not de-emphasising it at all. He said he will pray both in the  spirit and in the understanding, and he said he wishes everyone could speak in tongues. How can you interprete that to mean he was deemphasizing it? Like I said, the issue is a prayer tongue should not be used to address the congregation except an interpretation follows, else you will be a Babarian to others. And this should be done in decency and in order.

Once again that concept isn't altogether true. One doesn't have to speak in tongues in order to communicate with God.

You are so diametrically opposed to Paul its scary. Paul said he will pray in both understanding and the spirit (refering to tongues). He said a person praying in tongues speaks not to men but to God. What are you teaching here Bobbyaf?

Personal edification as used here by Paul is more negative than positive. The edifying here is seen as a selfish use of the gift in the light of it not being necessary in a congregational context. Paul prefers to see a corporate edification anytime over a personal one.

It is not used negatively, but rather that you cannot address a congregation in tongues. If you are praying in private or in church when everybody lift up their voice in prayer, you can use tongues because you are talking to God. When you are talking to men, then it is more edifying to speak to them in a language they understand. That is the essence of Paul's teaching.

Why would I speak in tongues in a congregation that doesn't understand me, and expect to now come and have to interpret what was said on my part, whether by me or someone else, when I could have said all of that in the common language from day one?

That you do not understand it does not make it less true. Paul said let one speak and another interprete. If there is no interpreter, then hold your tongue. Its very simple.

I just can't seem to understand why is it that everyone desires to contravene what Paul clearly teaches.

I wish you'd listen to yourself. You are the one contravening Paul by saying we should quit speaking in tongues. Paul said EVERYONE hath a tongue when we come together. he said one should speak and another should interprete. He wishes we all speak in tongues. How clear can that be?

And you know whats funny, is that half of what is interpreted could have been expressed under easier circumstances.

The operation of God is different from men. Following your argument, we can then say it wasn't necessary for the Disciples to speak in tongues on Pentecost. Afterall, Peter could have just stood up and spoke to them directly as he later did without the more difficult circumstances as you have implied.

And this is the crux of the matter. Self-aggrandisment was the order of the day as against building the body with more practical gifts as teaching, prophesying, knowledge, etc. The Corinthian congregation was a problem one in more ways than one.

Can you prove the statement in bold? I guess you will have to provide some extra-biblical proofs to prove yourself right in that case. The central theme of the passage was conducting the services in order and not self-aggrandisement. A tongue when interpreted as Paul says is just as important as Prophecy: 1 Cor. 14:5  would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

I have to assume using your line of argument that all those people who have this special gift of being able to dialogue with God, must at least have love as the core of their spiritual gifts.

Can you prove to us that Cornelius had love as his central gift at the time he and his family received the infilling of the Holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues? Don't add to scripture. It's a dangerous path, and I cannot wish you Godspeed when you do.

LOL, Imagine if Paul were here? He'd have his work cut out for him.

You think Paul will object when he said he wishes everyone will speak in tongues and that we should ALL have a tongue when we come together? I think not!!! Paul will only have issues if somone picks up the microphone to address the congregation and he blurts out in tongues without an interpretation. That is the crux of the whole mattter.

@Bobbyaf,

You're adding to the scriptures on this matter AKO. The gift that Peter spoke of was the Holy Spirit Himself and not tongues.

Again you are right in the sense that the primary gift refered to is the Holy Spirit. Everyone born again has a deposit of the Spirit else, you cannot claim to be of God. However, the issue here is the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

Please go through the book of Acts and you will realise that the evidence to the infilling of the Holy Spirit is that people begin to speak in tongues. From Cornelius' household to the Ephesian disciples, they all spoke in tongues. Infact, I challenge you to find any case of anyone filled with the Holy spirit in the Book of Acts who didn't speak in tongues. Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter Did you notice the only way they could tell that they received the infilling was that they spoke in other tongues? 1 Corinthians 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Agian, they spake in tongues as soon as they received the gift.

In John 3 Jesus in His discourse with Nicademas never once introduced the topic of tongue speaking in association with the baptism of the Spirit. Why didn't He? Of all the persons with the authority to have done so didn't.

Again the confusion arises when we don't really get the full gist of the matter. Jesus emphasis in John 3 was being born again. He mentions that everyone who believes will be baptized "with" the Holy Spirit. This is a separte event from being filled with the Holy Spirit, though both acts can happen at the same time as we see with the case of Cornelius and his Household. However, being filled with the Holy Spirit is usally a separate event which is why Paul said he wishes that every Christian will speak in tongues, in his epistle to the Corinthian church.
Getting born again through baptism into the Holy Spirit is a different thing entirely from being filled with the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. We can talk more about this if you so wish, but for now I'll just keep it at that so we do not get pulled in differnet directions as we discuss this issue.

@Bobbyaf,

Each gift must be contextualised and understood for what purpose they serve. That is well done in Paul's letter to the Corinthian church as follows:

The statement in bold is quite true. However, you have failed to indicate the diffferences between speaking in tongues and speaking in divers kind of tongues. I will explain the differences based on your statement that I have highlighted above i.e. the purpose that each serves.

Divers Kind of Tongues: The best example we find here is in Acts 2 during Pentecost. The main characteristic of divers kind of tongues is the fact that it is spoken in an ethnic language that can be understood by people who speak the language. That is why we find people of all nations understanding the disciples praise to God on Pentecost because it was done in their native language. This gift is meant to be a sign mainly to unbelievers as Paul indicated in1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. Can you imagine me praising God in Chines fluently in the presence of an unbelieving Chinese? He will either acknowledge that indeed, something supernatural just took place or get on a quest to confirm that I only pretended beforehand that I did not understood that language. Either way, I will get his attention. That is what divers kind of tongues are for.

Regular Prayer Tongues: Now this is meant for personal edification and is usually not understood by people around you. The purpose once again is for communication between a person and God, and also for personal spiritual development and edification. No one can understand this except such have the gift of interpretation or the person who spoke "keys" in and understand what he has said and provide the interpretation. This is why Paul siad this kind of tongues is not meant for congrgational worship because it is useless to others without interpretation.  So your statement: "From this its clear what the purpose of tongues was. It was a horizontal communication method of expression." is clearly negated by several scriptures such as: 1 Cor. 14:2  For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue s[b]peaketh not unto men, but unto God:[/b] for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries  28 - But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. ; So you see, tongues are for personal use and a vertical communication to God.

People are confused by this because they refuse to identify and separate the two different kinds of tongues indicated above. Now tell me, if tongues are mainly for horizontal communication alone, why would there be need to speak in the tongues of angels as Paul hinted?

@Jesoul,

The scripture you refer to in 1 Corinthians 12 refers to divers kind of tongues. It is in a special class like the offices of a Prophet and Apsostles as the list indicates. Do you ask to become an Apostle? No it is a calling, same with the ability to speak in divers kind of tongues.

As to the gift of the holy Spirit with divers kind of tongues it is meant for every believer. the whole church is meant to speak in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,

@nwando,

My brother Seun showed me pepper after I said my piece.
It's all good.
How is madam and the little one?
My love to you all this Christmas season.
Remain blessed

The Bobo did the same to me o. I'm actually using a variant of my name now. madam is fine and the litle ONES are doing great two. I've got two boys. I wish you the very best too this season too.

What State do you reside? I might have you do some research for me!

@napa,

Is it compulsory for a born again christian to speak in tongues? If yes, what can i do to speak in tongue, i've been praying for it but to no avail.

Like everything else in Christianity, the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the eveidence of speaking in tongues is a gift. Jesus said in Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? What do you do when someone offers you a gift? you reach out and receive it. There is no need to be praying and praying and praying when the gift is already yours. Just as you never had to be praying, and praying and praying to get you salvation, same thing applies here.

Thank God for the gift, receive it by faith, then proceed to speak and you will be amazed how the Spirit of God will take over from there.

@debosly,

That is a very nice piece. I couldn't add or delete from it.

I wonder why he has problem with Romans 3:23. I wish he could just prove the Bible wrong by pointing to one human being that has never sinned apart of course from Jesus. If He can provide one, then I'll be qucik to join sides with him.

@nwando,

So you are babyosisi. I've always wondered where you've been.

@babs787,

You don take style come here abi  ;Dafter being unable to respond to why Jesus ordered them to buy sword and couldnt rebuke them for showing him same and had to tell them that it was enough

Again, you want to camouflage your lack of scholarship by taking a cheap shot in an unrelated thread. Very typical of you.

So what are you driving at so that I will know how to come in?

You no sabi read? Oh I forget, you sabi read, you only lack understanding!

@babs787,

You have never provided any proof but exposed the fraud in your bible. Now if you are saying that he was not referring to physical sword, why did he tell that it was ok when shown one?
Luke 22 v 38: Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.”
What do you think he meant by 'it is enough'/ Was he not referring to the physical swords shown to him/ Common, you read to understand and not to argue blindly.

Now let's provide some answers to the riddle that is turning your beard grey. The first thing we need to look at is the phrase "it is enough". What does it betoken? The best way to know is to see how the same phrase is used in other places. Let's look at Mark 14:41 - And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. It is clear from here that the phrase is just an expression to indicating that all things are already taken care of and needs no input from others. Otherwise, we might say that jesus statement ther is contradictory because on the one hand He said they should continue sleeping, and on the other He said "it is enough". The same phrase clearly shows also that Jesus wanted them to hold their peace, which is what He had in mind when the Disciples showed him 2 swords.

Now lets go to the Luke 22:
35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. Now reading through the entire verse, one can safely conclude that Jesus was talking to at least 70 Disciples becuase it was the 70 he sent out without purse and scrip and shoes. You will find the reference in Luke 10. Now it beggars belief to say that Jesus said 2 swords are enough when He just told each of the 70 to get a sword. How can the two be reconciled? The only way is if He was not talking about the same thing. Jesus obviously meant the Word of God when He talked about buying swords. Anyone who knwos the Bible know very well that the sword is interchangeable with the Word of God. And the fact that Jesus stopped Peter from bloodshed and even healed the man that was struck only supports this notion further.

And why would Jesus want to defend Himself when He said in the same passage that ALL that was written of Him concerning His death must come to pass? It is incredulous at best that the violent slaves of allah are so eager to pin Jesus and violence. All they need do is provide us one proof where Jesus killed anyone or even attempted to kill anyone. Chikena.

@babs787,

Going forward, we can see from the above that Jesus did not showed himself but Judas had to do that by kissing him.

I have helped you already to understand simple timeline from my response above. Jesus identified Himself to the troops only after Judas betrayed Him already with a kiss. That fact is very clear.

No, he couldnt do that without the support of his creator.

First you claim I should show you the scripture which I did. Instead of you to acknowledge the fact that indeed jesus does not need swords to defend Himself, you are claiming there is no way He could have defended Himself without His creator. If I may ask, is it not the same Creator who confirmed that Jesus willingnly submitted Himself to death on the cross by displaying such power that caused the entire troop to fall just by the spoken word of Jesus?

You havent replied to why he commanded them to buy sword and if you are saying that he didnt mean physical sword, why didnt he rebuke Peter when he showed him physical sword.

He didn't rebuke Peter the same way He would not rebuke me today if I carry a gun around legitimately. I'll answer the questions about sword separately after this.

He didnt want to die because he didnt come to die but to preach the gospel which God sent him to come and do

If I should provide you with all the scriptures that showed Jesus expressly talking about His death and that He came to die, we would have to keep turning pages on this topic. Again, your lack of knowledge of the Bible is evident from the statement. It is one thing to be killed and it is another to die at the right time. The right time was after the Garden of Gethsemane which is the only reason why Jesus gave Himself up to the troops.

and read your bible where he hid for Jews when he learnt they wanted to kill him, he prayed to God to deliver him and cried to God, 'why has thou forsaken me'

Again, your ignorance of the scriptures shines through here. Jesus never cried 'why has thou forsaken me when the Jews wanted to kill Him. Rather, that statement was made on the cross after he was crucified by the Romans. And in any case, His statement of "Why has thou forsaken me" is what is called a rhetorical question. I trust you know what that means?

He may be aware of things to happen because God might have showed him but he didnt come to die for you and there is nowhere in the OT where his death, crucifixion and resurrecting after three days was prophesised and if you think you have, let me have it.

Again, you are going on rampage with ignorance here. There are dozens of prophecies relating to Jesus' death and resurrection in the OT. Perhaps you want to start with the fact that His statement on the Cross of "why has thou forsaken me" is taken directly from the OT prophecy relating to Jesus in the Psalms. Maybe you should start from there.

@babs787,

You stylishly deflected the thread with the claim that you would respond to the issue of 'why Jesus tell his disciples to buy sword' but at I will still respond to your last.

Are you for real? The fact that I provided you proof that Jesus does not need physical sword to defend himself is deflecting the thread? Do you know the meaning of that word or you just don't know how to reason out a matter?

Let me first educate you about the Quran before going into your bible that happened to be my first experience. Other writings might have been burnt but the fact remains, no two Quran, verses, chapter are different one completing each other as you have been deceiving yourself with that.

Don't deceive yourself. It wasn't other writings that were burnt. It was the Qu'ran that was burnt. The stronger man burnt the copies of those who were weaker and presented his copy as the only valid one. What makes you think that it is his copy that is authentic? Of course there is no competition becuase in the spirit of islam, the stronger one has killed off the weaker one, and claiming himself to be right. Assuming the makers of the KJV Bible destroys other translations of the Bible, does that make the KJV right? Absolutely not. Same with the Koran.

Thou shall not lie. Let me serve you the two verses and you will see that in the first one, they did not know Jesus and he had to tell them that he was the one while the other verses says that Judas showed Juses to them by betraying him with a kiss.

Again, your inability to reason clearly has betrayed your judgment. Let me bring your attention to the narration int the book of John where jesus identified Himself.  John 18:4 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. You should ask yourself the question, how did Judas betray Jesus? The answer is with a Kiss. Now even though John did not mention the actual kiss, he clearly indicated that at the point that Jesus identified Himself, Judas had already betrayed Him and was now standing back with the troops. For those who are not blinded by allah, it is clear that the betrayal with a kiss was a separate event that already took place at the time Jesus identified Himslef. This is how all scriptures work together in tandem to create a clear understanding.

I'll continue from here. I have a meeting now.

@Leilah,

I just saw your profile and you are a very beatiful woman. Sometimes I wonder what we men are looking for. I very much doubt that your Ex (if you permit me to use that term), would find himself someone as beautiful as you. The story is almost always the same in cases like this.

In any case, I think this is the time for you to start asking yourself some very serious questions. I think you should forget the guy totally for now and concentrate on yourself for the time being. I am not unaware of the pains you feel by the divorce but you can allow God to turn those pains to gains for you. Afterall, we are told in the Bible that "all things work together for good for those who love God."  The most encouraging testimony to this scripture is of course knowing how God turned around the tragedy of the Cross into an opportunity for new life to those who believe in Him.

Talk to your Maker, He cares. You probably never grew up in an environment where God is presented to you as a loving Father who is touched by every grief you feel. He wants to hold you now, he wants to cuddle you and comfort you. Reach out to Him in every way you can. Know that He's heard the voice of your weeping and NOW is the time for you to take a bold step of faith towards Him. He said those that come to Him He will in no wise cast out.

For whatever reason, a book keeps coming to my mind while writing. The book is titled: "I Dared to call Him Father" by Bilquis Shekh. This is someone who also experienced a lot of pain and endured harrowing severance from those she loved. She was able to reach out in faith and called on her maker. of course that made all the difference.  The principle in the scriptures is that God provides comfort through those whom He has comforted through similar circumstances. I believe you will find a lot of comfort in those pages.

I wish you the very best and will definitley keep you in my prayers.

@babs787,

Tayo-D, which do I hold on to? Jesus showing himself or Judas betraying him with a kiss?

Thanks

No scripture can be rightly interpreted without looking at other verses. God Himself testifies of it that it is a little here and a little there, and there is no scripture without its twin. So you see, all those scriptures do not contradict but compliment each other. The authors' perspectives are different and so their stories come across differently. That is where the Bible differ from the Qu'ran, we do not gather and burn other writings to come up with a politically correct one like is done with the Qu'ran.

As to the story line, all the authors combined give us the full picture. While indeed Judas kissed Jesus to identify Him, the Soldiers asked Jesus to also identify Himself just to be sure that they are getting the right person. If I take the Police along with me to arrest someone, and I point out the person, it is only judicious of the Police to ask the accused to identify himslef also. This is only common sense.

In any case, you have tried to dance around the subject being discussed by coming up with this. The bottom line is that Jesus had the power in His words alone to defend Himself as the scriptures here testified. So there is absolutely no need for the sword. That should get you to rethink your stance that Jesus needed swords to defend Himself. Besides, the same passage said Jesus knew all that was coming to Him, and He rebuked Peter after Peter declared that Jesus' death and suffering must not be allowed to happen. You want scriptures for that too?

@babs787,

Can you serve me the verse please?

I don't have much time for a rejoinder now. But here is the scripture you asked for:

John 18: 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: 9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? 12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

@All,

When people like babs787 and His hordes of blood-thirsty believers in allah try endlessly to associate Jesus with violence, one can't but wonder why this is so. In any case, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to realise that their faith cannot stand on its two legs without a reference to Christianity or Judaism. Afterall, every fake product out there always find a way to atach itself to the authenthic product, either through its name or by repacking the same product though using inferior materials.

In a desperate attampt to justify Mohammed's blood-thirstyness, babs787 is trying to make us believe that Jesus was an advocate of armed conflict. How can He be an advocate of armed conflict when He taught that we should turn the other cheek when we are struck? How can He be blood thirsty when He stopped one of His overzealous Disciple from continuing bloodshed, and rather healed him that was hurt?

My question to babs787 is this: Why didn't this same Jesus use a sword when the crowd were going to throw Him over a cliff? Why would He need a sword when just by a spoken word from Him, the army that came to arrest Him fell back. Is it not the same Jesus who said if he so wished, he could have called on His Father to send Him legions of Angels at that point in time to deliver Him (and not men with swords)? Why would He need a sword when it is written of Him that not even will his foot hit a stone becase Angels have been given charge over Him.

As someone said earlier, all that happened to Him were His Father's will which he clearly submitted to in the Garden of Gethsemane and all through His life. He was so eager to get on with the cross that he told Judas to go do what he knew he was going to do quickly. He knew His disciples would scatter when He would be arrested and already told Peter that he would deny His master 3 times before dawn.

So you see, it takes a man with an agenda to deny these truths and try to pin the unpinnable to him whom the scriptures refer to as the Prince of Peace.

@MP007,

does it really matter if Jesus was asian,black or jew when he came?

I don't understand what you are driving at here, but it does matter that Jesus must be a Jew. While His skin colour is insignificant, His bloodline is absolutely essential. And like Jesus Himself said: "Salvation is of the Jews." There is no way humanity could be assured of salvation through Christ if Jesus wasn't born a Jew.

@auwal87,

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc are not the problem, but the followers are the problem, in all these three major religions, killing outrightly is not allowed, for example in the Holy Qur'an, God Almighty says:

(Qur'an 5:32) For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

Actually, you need to give credit to the real author of that verse you quoted. That verse in Surah 5:32 was plagiarized by Mohammed from the Jewish oral tradition (the Mishnah). That statement was lifted word for word from the "Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a.

As per the topic at hand, muslims who steal, kill and destroy have a good example in Mohammed. Christians who do that cannot ever point to Jesus Christ or His early disciples as their role models. So yo see, a Christian who steals, kills and destoy is obviously a bastard, while the muslim who does that is a real son of his father - Mohammed!

@luv2talk,

In your zealous haste, you fail to realise that cgift's use of "Mo" in that statement is actually a reference to Mohammed and not Moses. I think you owe someone an apology.

@ricadelide,

You have provided an excellent write-up which baiscally defines some issues here. While I agree with the generral idea of the write-up, I do not find myself arriving at the same conclusion with you.

While we can all agree that the general though of a rich person is that he has great posessions, we miss the point of the whole thing if we think that is the end.

There is one thing the great possessions does for the rich man. It provides him with the means to meet not only His needs, but his wants. So in essence, being rich is not just possessing material possessions, but the in possessing the means to meet your needs and wants whenever and however you so desire. I dare say that Jesus met ALL his needs and wants whenever and however way he wanted it to happen, and so I still maintain that Jesus was rich!

@Afam,

This is what we have been asking from you all along on this forum. We have always requested that you try and deal with issues, present an original thought and above all stay clear of personality conflicts. In my honest opinion, this is the first time you will ever write anything on this forum that provides some food for thought.

While the write up is a good attempt at discussing issue and I believe the thought is original with you, it appears you still have some work to do with the personality thingy. It is very rude to refer to mrpataki as "that boy". It potrays an air of superiority complex or just plain lack of manners. You need to work on that area.

That being said, I will definitely follow this topic and make contributions as the issues may lean towards areas that I am more conversant with. But in all, energy conservation is a great idea and we have to cut costs to the barest minimum.

I'll be back to discuss this further.

@Backslider,

I don't honestly know how to help you. You have very little knowledge of scripture and it will take time for me to show you. I will do what I can here.

Thanks for the 'compliment'. I do not claim to know the scripture, but one thing I can say is this: no man can force down a doctrine down my throat that i find no basis for in scripture. The "righteousness is synonymous" with poverty is just one of those doctrines.

That is not what I said read the post. Yes hard work is a Virtue. Let him that does not work not eat. How  much was he making preaching? You have no idea that Jesus was the High Priest? Well don't you know that he was of the tribe of Judah and that The scepter and the staff of priesthood was given to Jesus?
The Levitical commission is given unto Judah but notice it says the Scepter shall not depart from Judah. Jesus was and is a Priest. "For we have an high priest, "

You are the one that said Jesus wouldn't be working as a Carpenter if He was rich. Now you have changed the goal post to when He became an itenerant minister. You seem really confused. You just keep muddling up everything in an attempt to make the scripture say what it does not. Your statement about Jesus being the High Priest only shows how muddled up you are in your thinking. Jesus only became our High Priest after His resurrection. He live under the OT, and the only person qualified to be the High Priest then has to be  Levite, specifically from the House of Aaron.

Just read your bible and you shall be saved from error even when I quote scripture you can't read it?
Luke 2:22-24 (King James Version)
22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Perhaps you need to take your own advice. I never denied that Mary's sacrifice was the birds because they were poor. What I said is that this sacrifice was done when Jesus was 42 days old and the magis did not present the gold to Jesus until He was about 2 years old. Let me give you an asignment. Please find out how I came about those numbers. Your thinking may be straightened if you will just read the Bible in its entirety.

may be you don't know what you are saying go and get a bible dictionary it will help you.

I assume you only ssay this because you find my statements true and can't refute it from scripture. At least this approach is better than the ones you made earlier where you try to force-fit your meanings into the Bible.

Thank you I can't reason Logically because the bible is clear on this one. This shows you are lazy to read your bible to study yourself.

Again you are dancing around in circles. My question is very simple. Was it the house of Peter's mother that jesus invited Andrew and the other disciple into in John chapter 1. Please provide the evidence.

The soldiers wanted his blood stained cloth? Hmmmmm you mean Abraham never forsook his God

So you didn't know that they parted His clothes and cast lots for His intricately woven overcoat? Abraham never forsook His God nor His wealth either. God and gold are not mutually exclusive else He won't pave heaven with gold nor declare that the silver and gold are His and not the devil's!

@cgift,

We all know He was rich in heaven but he was porr on earth! Haba! Why would a physically or materially rich being look for a fish before being able to pay taxes?

You have no idea what you are saying. This is the epitmone of riches. Being able to meet your needs legitimately, while pleasing God. He didn't go aborrowing to meet His needs, neither did He have to beg any body to provide the money. He met His needs, which is more than we can say of many Christians today. And by the way, I was listening to a Kenneth Copeland tape a while back in which he said he hardly goes to the Stores to buy supplies for himself any more. Instead of paying for a pair of socks which he needed, he'd rather get the socks and sow it into someone else's life and put his faith in God to have someone give him a pair of socks. That way, he exercises his faith pleasing God while also meeting someone else's needs. And he gets his needs met all the time too. Now this is more than just rich. It's super rich.

He was not 'rich'. To be rich is not to be comfortable. Riches transcends just being comfortable unless we are deceiving ourselves.

He was rich in every way. Physical, emotional, materially and spiritually. To be rich means you can meet ALL your needs without having to borrow or steal. Jesus did neither and yet His needs never went unmet. That is true riches.

He was not materialistic so he could not have being rich.

Materialism is not synonymous with riches. Infact, a poor person can be materialistic. Materialism is tied to greed.
The greatest example of a rich Christian who is worth emulating that I know in the world today is Peter Daniels. I rememeber in one of His debates on TV with unbels and agnostics who couldn't figure out why he should be rich when he is a professing Christian. Someone asked him if its true that he has only one pair of dress shoes, and he answered yes because according to him, he only has one pair of feet. So how come you drive a Rolls Royce another asked, well I only have one of those too he retorted. This is a very very rich Christian who isn't materialistic. He is so rich that his Corporations are the only ones in the world with their own private currency, and they have no mortgage, no overdraft and owe no man anything but love. Their money is gold based on not the worthless paper we all carry around today. His goal in life is to see how much money a man from a poor background can give to the kingdom of God in his lifetime, and he is right now putting together a group of Christians who he will train to learn how to make money so they can give out 20 billion dollars to the kingdom of God in the next 20 years. He is a 40% tither and according to him, sometimes they give 40% and sometimes they go above it. So you see, being rich does not equate materialism.

Backslider, answer my deeper life question?

Perhaps you should ask him too if Pastor Kumuyi is poor.

@Backslider,

Jesus gave up all the riches that are his in heaven to become a man and was born to a poor family (not homeless and destitute), his stepfather was carpenter, if they had money from the gold given at his birth (as some claim) he would not of had to work. The Bible does not mention his riches but many teach this from silence.

So rich people don't work? I can't believe this is coming out of your mouth! Rich or not, hard work is a virtue that the scripture advocates. Laziness and idleness is frowned upon by scripture.

As Jesus grew up he worked in the trade of a carpenter, not a trade known for its wealth. How did Jesus become rich with a step-dad who was only a carpenter? There is absolutely no indication anywhere that he was wealthy from his family or from traveling with His disciples. By the way, He took no tithes.

While there may be no indication as to how much He was making, there is absolutely no proof that He lacked anything He wanted. And by the way, He lived in the OT and could not receive tithes. He was not born a Levite and wasn't a Priest of the O.T.

In Luke 2:22-24, Jesus is taken to the Temple by his mother a poor families sacrifice is made -two pigeons (according to Leviticus 12:8.) If they had been rich as the prosperity teachers claim they would have had to make a larger sacrifice. If they did not and were rich they broke the law.

This sacrifice was made when Jesus was just 42 days old. The Magi had not visited Jerusalem by then. The magi's visit happened when Jesus was about 2 years old. Your Ministers of poverty never told you that did they?

Matt. 11:7-8; Lk. 7:25 "As they departed, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?" But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments?
Indeed those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts." Neither John or Jesus dressed as those who show God's blessings today with thousand dollar suits and shoes. Why does Jesus' cousin John wear such bad clothing while Jesus is walking around in expensive clothing (a seamless garment), didn’t He share?

It was all a matter of choice. John dressed in animal skin while Jesus was dressed in fine linen woven from top to bottom. John was a huge contrast to Jesus in almost everything, you can chexk out one of the contrast Jesus made in Matthew 16:18-19. And by the way, are you the one responsible for your cousin's upkeep?

Like Avanzini will say "Jesus had a nice house, a big house big enough to have company stay the night with Him at the house. Let me show YOU His house. G0 over to John the first chapter and I’ll show you His house. Now, child of God, that’s a house big enough to have company stay the night in. There's His house." (Believers voice of Victory program, TBN Jan.20,1991)
I couldn't find it! How about you? Avanzini says "Jesus had a big house" but it was Peters mothers house in Capernaum that was often used as a base, it was not His.
Matt. 8:19-20: "Then a certain scribe came and said to Him, "Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." Jesus himself he had no place to lay his head, no permanent home, he constantly traveled.

In your zeal to glorify poverty, you are unable to reason logically. How can jesus have invited those 2 desciples to stay in the house of Peter's mother when He had not even met Peter in John 1? One of the 2 who went to stay in His house was Andrew, Peter's brother who later introduced Peter to Jesus. Jesus teaching that He had no place to lay His head isn't to be interpreted as if He had to sleep in a homeless shelter every night. Rather, Jesus was teaching them that He is not attached to anything. Jesus never begged anybody for anything throughout His earthly life. His needs, including shelter were readily met - now that's rich.

He dressed like everyone else (simple), he even said to forsake this world to inherit his kingdom. His kingdom is not of this world and he made it perfectly clear in His teachings. Some seem to think that Moses may have gotten it all wrong to have forsaken the riches and pleasures of Egypt and suffer affliction with his brethren looking by faith to him who is invisible." (Heb.11:24-27).

Abraham never forsook his riches, Job, Isaac, Joseph, Jacob etc never forsook their riches. So why are you teaching for principle that which is not? Moses never got it wrong? He followed His vision and was in obedience to God. Jesus' clothings were so valuable that the Soldiers wanted it. Do you think they would have wanted the worn-out abiliments of a poverty stricken man? I think not.

He didn't have to, he could have had the best of both worlds. The rich young ruler came to Jesus and he responded by telling to him to give all his riches to the poor and follow him. Was Jesus telling him to rid himself of riches while he actually possessed them Himself? Would he ask someone to do something he himself would not?

You alwasy mis-read scripture. Jesus' only revealed what was in the rich man's heart - greed and covetousness. Do yuo know what would have happened if the guy had gotten over that covetousness and gave up all his possessions? He would have received a hundredfold in this lifetime and still inherit eternal life - mark 10;30, Matthew 19:29. So you see, riches is not synonymous with sin.