₦airaland Forum

This should have been before now, our leaders are only thinking of the hand-me-downs they get from their Cattle-fulani slave masters.

These are needless philosophies, meant to astound chicken Christians!

To be in Christ means to be received into the sonship of God almighty, through brotherhood with Christ. The fact that the Bible said if 'any man be in Christ' does not make Christ a location! Its a state of being! Just like saying "He came unto destruction", that does not mean destruction is a location, its only a state.

If I say "he acted in wisdom," does that make wisdom a location where people go to act?

Yet people get impressed by all these and clap!!!!!!!

You can celebrate it your own way. The fact that most people celebrate it committing sin, which is associated with every other celebration beside Xmas does not mean the day itself is bad, it only mean that the attitude of most people regarding celebration in general is perceived as bad. There are people who don't celebrate in that so called bad way, why not use them as a reason to see that its good too.

Truth is, every practice on earth can be traced to some pagan practices. Everyday on earth is dedicated to some pagan god or the other if properly researched. Even some practices and Ideas in the Bible can be given some pagan connotations by those who don't hold them like you do.

Well, Tonye T, I must say that I'm suprised that this article is coming from you of all persons!

That haven been said, I would give my opinion here,
Pentecostalism will outlast protestantism, consume her. You would look to see Protestantism (That is if at all you would know what it had looked like then) and all you would see would be Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism would encroach  upon the mother church but she would withstand her!

And if you think pentecostalism you know today would be the same in ten years to come, you are in for a shock. Pentecostalism would continue to change and change like it has always done. It would absorb both the fair and the foul of her rapidly changing society. It would accommodate every wolf that comes into its fold with all cunningness and predatorship. All the believes of the new world order and more would be absorbed into penticostalism.

Penticostalism would grow and grow. This is because its going to become an easier option for the world of easy going humans, a world where nothing can be condemned, a world where people can no longer draw a line between sanity and insanity. It would become very attractive to members and lucrative to owners. Even as it is now, it would become more unchallenging to the consciences of its members and they would wallow in their iniquities, claiming grace for their purpose.

All forms of evil would be accepted as the norms because, penticostalism is based on personal perception of the Bible alone. No doctrine, no strict regulations, no laid down traditions, no established organisation that is superior to its founder, not even a formal training is strictly required. Men would rise up and interprete the bible the way that suits them, the way they want to believe it, like it has started already. The devil would call for miracle and innocent supposed but superior feeling christians would flock there. They would be spoken to sweetly, acted for beautifully, and dazzled with flints and sparkles. They would be told to believe and all these would be given to them! They would indirectly be encouraged to embezzle, steal and defraud (Grace covers them anyway!).

You ask, will pentecostalism last?! It will outlast most orthodox and protestant churches of today. It would assume an unchristian dimension, its form very attractive and alluring, like its already assuming. It would, in its thousand and one different forms be the main church beside the Catholic Church. It would become more worldly than the world. Pentecostals would believe themselves to be the real Christians, the heaven bound people. But may God help us!

You asked a question, here, you have an answer!

, and you will hang by the neck until you are confirmed dead,

@Tolu

Your types are a curse to this nation, and that is the problem with fundamentalism.

A nation infringed on the security of your country and all you type for us to read here is that the west orchestrated it! You are a fool and it takes God's devine intervention for your types to realise that.

You are a very unpatriotic Idiot, I'm sure you wish you were an Arab!
Your loyalty lies with them, Chicken brain.

M U M U

Monday, December 06, 2010
Sun News publishing

The Joint Task Force (JTF) Operation Restore Hope in Niger Delta, has shed more light on its operation, saying it did not plan to attack Ayakoromor community in Burutu council of Delta State, where militant leader, John Togo’s camp is situated.

There have been conflicting reports of the casualty figure in the confrontation between the JTF and militants. Commander, JTF, Major- General Charles Osa Omoregie, who disclosed this said troops of the task force were ambushed by the rebel group as they were approaching the riverside community which resulted in gun duel. Omoregie stated that none of the soldiers went out of the rule of engagement, denouncing allegations that the soldiers purposely destroyed the community.

The JTF boss warned the media against sensationalism, noting that security and national interest should be paramount to all in the current operation to flush out the recalcitrant militants. He said John Togo was given two weeks to surrender his arms but he refused, adding that information at JTF’s disposal had it that he was in the community prior to the attack. According to him, the community had been assisting the task force in its operation by giving out useful information, denyin g allegations that the soldiers engaged in mass burial of those killed in the attack.

Said he: “I want to state it categorically that we had no problem with Ayakoromor. It wasn’t a target and it was not in our plan but we were taken aback by the volley of gunshots from the town and what the soldiers did was to fight their way into the town. Our reaction was based on the situation on ground. Some of the houses that were burnt were those used in storing fuel by the seaside.”

“Ayakoromor people have been very helpful as such they couldn’t have been our target. We even alerted them about the operation and asked them to relocate to other places and come back when the situation is normal but they didn’t know that it would turn out to be like that.

“We do expect in a military confrontation that somebody should be hurt and in this situation the casualties were the militants who ambushed the soldiers. To say that it was a genocide , a massacre, I will say no, because the people are not our enemies. The militants are very few. We are not involved in mass burial and nobody took us to any graveyard. If there was any casualty, it was those militants who were at the forefront. We didn’t burn the community.”

Omoregie disclosed that five camps had sprung up recently and that while Ebikoro voluntarily surrendered his camp to authorities, John Togo and Benekawei refused. He maintained that no amount of propaganda would dissuade the JTF from carrying out its mandate to the letter, adding that John Togo had been uprooted from the two camps.

He added that the task force had taken the leadership of Ijaw Youth Council, Chairmen of Bomdai, Burutu, Red Cross, among others to the community to see things for themselves, even as he disclosed that food items had been distributed to those displaced by the confrontation.

Indeed it is a very interesting statement made by the Prince of peace!
Was Jesus telling them to buy a sword for offence, self-defense, or was He meaning something else? He said earlier:
Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also,  Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
(Matthew 5:39, 40, 44)
The real battle is not with fellow humans but with the prince of demons. The apostle Paul penned down clearly these wonderful words of truth:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)
We are to be equipped in this great warfare. In fact the entire armories we require in an earthly battle are also required in the spiritual battle. Each earthly weapon symbolizes some spiritual weapon.
Look at how the apostle relates the earthly to the spiritual:
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints. (Ephesians 6:13-18)
You have the "whole armour"-breastplate, shield, helmet, sword, etc! It is not the literal weapons, but rather "the breastplate of righteousness", "the shield of faith", "the helmet of salvation", and "the sword of the Spirit"!
Jesus told each of His disciples to possess a sword. Which sword? Was it literal swords that He bid them have?
Many times we see when Jesus spoke figuratively people got Him wrong. Even the learned Nicodemus misunderstood Christ regarding being born again. When Jesus talked about the spiritual birth he took it literally.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (John 3:4)
On another occasion when Jesus said that all must eat His flesh and drink His blood, the multitude took it literally and misunderstood
Him so badly that most of them never followed Christ after that! John records:
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat?,  Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?,  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (John 6:52, 60, 66)
Coming to the swords: Was Jesus talking about the literal swords to be taken? If He meant the literal swords why did He rebuke Peter for using the sword against His enemy, and why did
Jesus heal the injured man? Behold the scene.
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. (John 18:10)
Look at the compassion of Christ even for His enemies who came to kill Him!
And he touched his ear, and healed him. (Luke 22:51)
Notice how Jesus reacted to Peter's method of protecting his
Master:
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26:52, 53)
A legion in the Roman army division was around 6,000 soldiers. "Twelve legions of angels": that is, one legion for each of them-Christ and the eleven apostles. (Judas had already joined the enemies of Christ, and was leading the other band!)
Christ did not need any earthly defense; the mighty heavenly air force was at His disposal if He wanted to. In fact we see the enemies of Jesus falling down, powerless, just before they arrested Him.
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And
Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. (John 18:3-6)
The power of the divine Christ most likely flashed forth through
His human flesh, as it happened also on the Mount of Transfiguration where the three apostles of Jesus fell down on their faces seeing His glory (See Matthew 17:1-7).
God was giving His murderers another chance to let them know whom they were about the handle and crucify!
Before telling His disciples about the fierce battle ahead in
Gethsemane and Calvary, Jesus cautioned Peter about the attack of the devil on him.
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice  deny that thou knowest me. (Luke 22:31-34)
Peter and the rest had no idea as to what exactly Christ spoke.
They had so many preconceived opinions about the future.
Peter truly loved the Lord. We can see it when he took the sword to defend his Master! But he trusted his own strength and wisdom. Therefore he finally denied his dearly beloved Lord. When he realized what he had done he wept bitterly!
And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. (Luke 22:61, 62)
Peter and the rest failed during the crucial hour of test and temptation because they did not understand the Word of God! They did not put on the whole armor of God, but rather had the physical armor!
Which sword did Christ mean? Obviously He did not mean the literal sword as he rebuked Peter for using it. The Scripture reveals the true sword.
The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
(Ephesians 6:17)
Revelation talks about the sword that Christ will use, as His weapon, to defeat His enemies finally:
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations. (Revelation 19:15)
The sword that comes from His mouth is His Word!
Even in the wilderness when He was battling it out with the devil Christ used the "sword"-the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. For all the three fierce temptations that Satan assailed
Him with, the weapon of Jesus was the Word of God-"It is written"!
(See Matthew 4:1-11)
Christ was asking them to get ready for the fiercest battle that was just ahead of them. He was asking them to get equipped.
After telling the disciples to get prepared for the battle, Christ showed them as to what He meant, by taking them to the Garden of Gethsemane, for a powerful season of prayer, and the battle with the forces of darkness.
Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called
Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. (Matthew 26:36-38)
Instead of watching and praying, the disciples were overtaken with sleep. Jesus battles it alone! And He comes to check how the disciples are fairing in their battle, and, lo, they are already knocked out!
And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. (Matthew 26:40, 41)
Peter had a sword, but the wrong sword! What he was told to have was the spiritual sword to fight the battle in the Garden of great temptation. They were to "watch and pray" to escape temptation.
But they slept, and therefore Peter fell into temptation, and to the enemies' trap. And to make up for the spiritual sword, he wielded his literal sword!
ONE MIGHT SAY: Jesus said that the two swords which they had were "enough". Therefore it is obvious that He was referring to the literal swords!
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. (Luke 22:38)
Please note, Jesus did not say "the two swords were enough", but said, "It is enough". If Jesus meant about the literal swords, how could two swords be enough for twelve people if they were going to war? And if Jesus meant just two swords were enough then He would be contradicting His own words earlier, where He told all of them should have a sword each! He said earlier:
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
Therefore, "It is enough", means, to wind up this conversation, as it was also time up to go and start praying! And the next thing they did was to march to the site of spiritual warfare.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. (Luke 22:38, 39)
Also Christ wanted to end that conversation, as they were not in a position to understand what He was saying. Jesus told them earlier:
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth. (John 16:12, 13)
They were not to have the two swords, but the two-edged sword!
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword. (Hebrews 4:12)
This is the powerful weapon that Jesus wields against His enemies.
These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges. (Revelation 2:12)
ONE MIGHT AGAIN SAY: If Christ meant the spiritual sword why did He say to "buy" a sword? He said:
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
Well, this method of speaking spiritual things in a literal way was not new. Jesus used the illustration of selling something to buy another thing even in His parables.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. (Matthew 13:44)
To get something spiritual we have to "sell" or give up the things that are an obstacle to its possession. It is only when we give up our selfish ambitions and motives we will be able the "buy" or receive the heavenly gift. Though spiritual things are free we are to "buy" it,
as the Gospel prophet, Isaiah, too, penned down the invitation of
God regarding "buying" things for free!
Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
(Isaiah 55:1)
Jesus told Peter just before the temptation in the Garden to strength his brethren later when he got converted. And when the apostle got converted he admonished God's people to give much attention to the sword, which he lacked-the Word of God. He wrote:
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (2 Peter 1:19)
Are we carrying the sword everyday? We need to! But not the literal sword that Peter once carried, but:
The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:17)
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

Bobbyaf, show your talent

@sunch

Forget the steroetyping. I would also try not to generalise here. The Igbira girls I've come across are very loving and most times totally dedicated to their men. However, they require you too to be dedicated as well. If on the contrary you are otherwise, expect anything from them.

Goodluck.

firebrand:
VOODOO: This is not new or peculiar to a particular denomination. The Methodist church youths once protested against the church from taking part in the funeral of a particular Oluwo (the head of ogboni cult). It is the sign of end time.

I concede though that this is not limited to Pentecostalism alone, however, its popular in today's wave of blind follower ship that men, without any formal training and without belonging to any formal Christian body with whatever motive would jump up and all they need to do is dress flashily, perform miracles with the help of whatever, voodooism not ruled out and then preach in sweet voices and people would rush blindly them. People whose authenticity would have been questioned and their ways deciphered among organized Christianity are freely leading men astray. You might not see things from my point of view, however, the truth cannot be otherwise. Like the example you gave above where youths of a particular Church rose against the funeral of a known cultist, tell me, is this possible among the new generation churches where the pastor reign supreme? Even if the youths are told that their pastor or a prominent elder in the church is a cultist they would never believe, rather, they will call on the wrath of God upon you.

These are my observations from without, you either take it or leave it.

firebrand:
PRAYING LIKE THE THE PHARISEES: Let me jost correct your wrong interpretation of that scriptural passage. When you are praying alone, you dont need to disturb your neighbours by shouting, that is hypocrisy. You dont need to go to the streets and start shouting in the name of prayer as an individual, that is what the pharisees does. On the same vein there is no restriction to the level of your voice if you are in the assembly of brethren like in the church. The book of Isaiah says "cry aloud and spare not". Even Jesus cried out to Lazarus to come out of the grave. This may be necessary at times if situation permits. It was not meant for recognition or hypocrisy.

Jesus cried out to Lazarus not in prayer. It was clearly directed in the bible that prayers should be said quietly(as in secret), without raising of voice and without verbose babbling. (eg die die die and the likes).

Matthew 6:5-8 (New International Version, ©2010)

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

I wouldn't say much about this.

firebrand:
CHARITY: I need you to throw more light on this because i know many churches with charity ministry, and many of them pentecostal. Also you needto visit some of churches and see how the less privilege are been assisted.

Yes, I agree with you that some churches make efforts to aid their member. But on the general, Concerning the gospel of works which is not only absent in Pentecostalism but regarded as a no go area for a christian because it tends to glorify work and not faith, in other words, salvation by faith alone. In that same Bible that the Gospel of faith alone was taken from, there was also a gospel of work but it beats my imagination why faith is taken and work is left out. Just to be clear, it would be wrong too if work alone is taken and faith is left out. I therefore make bold to say that faith without works is dead, in other words, leads to death and work without faith, is dead, that is, leads to death.

On these two topics, both Saints Paul and James dwelt extensively, but lets see what our lord Jesus Christ, the author and the finisher of our faith said about them;

Work
Matthew 25
New American Standard Bible
34"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did
not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Faith
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," MAR 16:16.

The two passages above are directly the words of our lord Jesus Christ, the author and the finisher of our faith (and not that of saints paul or james or any apostle), it beats my imagination therefore why one virtue is esteemed and the other jettisoned among those that flaunt themselves to know the bible so much.

firebrand:
PROSPERITY: The word of God says in the book of Zechariah that he will spread his cities(church) abroad with prosperity. And the scripture also confirm that Christ became poor so that we can become rich, are all testament that God is ready to prosper His children. Note again that the preaching of prosperity should not be at the expense holiness, without which no man shall see God.

Again, going back to the old testament to back your points up . The prosperity gospel of Pentecostalism, also known as the “Word of Faith,” the believer is told to use God, whereas the truth of biblical Christianity is just the opposite—God uses the believer. Word of Faith or prosperity theology sees the Holy Spirit as a power to be put to use for whatever the believer wills. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a Person who enables the believer to do God's will. The prosperity gospel is a destructive greed movement infiltrating the church today. They are identified in the bible as dangerous false teachers and Christians are urged to avoid them.

Paul warned Timothy about such men in 1 Timothy 6:5, 9-11. These men of “corrupt mind” supposed godliness was a means of gain and their desire for riches was a trap that brought them “into ruin and destruction” (v. 9). The pursuit of wealth is a dangerous path for Christians and one which God warns about: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (v. 10). If riches were a reasonable goal for the godly, Jesus would have pursued it. But He did not, preferring instead to have no place to lay His head (Matthew 8:20) and teaching His disciples to do the same. It should also be remembered that the only disciple concerned with wealth was Judas.

Paul said covetousness is idolatry (Ephesians 5:5) and instructed the Ephesians to avoid anyone who brought a message of immorality or covetousness (Ephesians 5:6-7). Prosperity teaching prohibits God from working on His own, meaning that God is not Lord of all because He cannot work until we release Him to do so. Faith, according to the Word of Faith doctrine, is not submissive trust in God; faith is a formula by which we manipulate the spiritual laws that prosperity teachers believe govern the universe. As the name “Word of Faith” implies, this movement teaches that faith is a matter of what we say more than whom we trust or what truths we embrace and affirm in our hearts.

A favorite term in the Word of Faith movement is “positive confession.” This refers to the teaching that words themselves have creative power. What you say, Word of Faith teachers claim, determines everything that happens to you. Your confessions, especially the favors you demand of God, must all be stated positively and without wavering. Then God is required to answer (as though man could require anything of God!). Thus, God's ability to bless us supposedly hangs on our faith. James 4:13-16 clearly contradicts this teaching: “Now listen, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” Far from speaking things into existence in the future, we do not even know what tomorrow will bring or even whether we will be alive.

Instead of stressing the importance of wealth, the Bible warns against pursuing it. Believers, especially leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:3), are to be free from the love of money (Hebrews 13:5). The love of money leads to all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Jesus warned, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). In sharp contrast to the Word of Faith emphasis on gaining money and possessions in this life, Jesus said, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19). The irreconcilable contradictions between prosperity teaching and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is best summed up in the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:24, “You cannot serve both God and money."

It is customary for those who they know more than others to stick to their wrong teachings and instead of correcting themselves, indulge in trying to make others follow their ways instead. Study into this and open your mind.

firebrand:
@poster, I quite appreciate your concern as expressed, but i would like to open your mind and accept genuine contributions based on the word of God. I have  the following to contribute which i belief  would address the grey areas you highlited:

TITHING: I would not like to dwell much on this because many other threads have addressed this satisfactorily. Tithing is biblical. Jesus and the Apostles never condemn tithing, so it not wrong if the church teaches about tithing. The only wrong will be if it is overflogged.
of Isaiah says "cry aloud and spare not". Even Jesus cried out to Lazarus to come out of the grave. This may be necessary at times if situation permits. It was not meant for recognition or hypocrisy.

Like you said, this issue has been over flogged but I need to answer you. Going by the fact that Pentecostalism zeroes in on the new testament alone and hold it to be the basis for Christian teaching, tithing should, like every other doctrine jettisoned by them be also done away with. The following article should help to throw more light;

   TO TITHE OR NOT TO TITHE?

'CP' denotes 'compare passage'

It needs to be established at the very outset here that this study does not teach against Christians giving into the work of God. It is about how they give – whether spontaneously, or by compulsion. A teaching persists in the contemporary church that Christians under grace in the New Testament are obligated to tithe as the Jews under the law had to tithe in the Old Testament. There are no defining scriptures anywhere in the Bible however, to validate such teaching. Nevertheless the proponents of tithing do use scriptures to argue their position.

The purpose of this study is to examine those scriptures in context to determine if they really can be used for that purpose. But first let us find out exactly what the tithe is (CP Lev 27:30-34). We see from this that the tithe is a tenth part. Under the law here the Old Testament Jews had to pay ten percent of the produce of the earth and the increase of their herds and flocks to God. It had nothing to do with money then, as it has today. Today the tithe is stipulated as ten percent of one’s gross income which has to be paid to the local church. Those who argue for the tithe use Mal 3:8-11 to teach that the local church, being the place where Christians are spiritually fed, is the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament storehouse where the tithes had to be taken, and that New Testament Christians who withhold their tithes will be cursed the same as the Old Testament Jews (CP Mal 3:8-11). Nothing that God says here can be applied to New Testament Christians. God rebuked the Jews who were under the law and obligated to tithe. New Testament Christians are not under the law because it has been fulfilled in Christ, and they have been redeemed from its curse (CP Ro 10:4; Ga 3:13-14).

The tithe is first mentioned in scripture when Abraham tithed to Melchizedec – a priest of the most high God – from the spoils of war after the slaughter of the kings, when Abraham rescued his nephew Lot and the women captives, in Gen 14 (CP Gen 14:18-20). We will learn more about this tithe and how it is represented by the proponents of tithing in the contemporary church a little later when we study He 7. Another argument for tithing is said to be found in Mt 23:23 (CP 23:23). Many in the church believe that by acknowledging the obligation of the Jews to tithe here Jesus is teaching that tithing is also obligatory for New Testament Christians. Tithing is not even the issue though. Jesus was rebuking Scribes and Pharisees who were subject to the law and obligated to tithe anyway. The issue Jesus was addressing was not their tithes, but their neglect of justice, mercy and faithfulness toward others. To practice these was more important then being sticklers for the smallest detail of tithing (CP Mt 23:24-33). This is what Jesus was really leading up to in Mt 23, which precludes V23 from being used to teach that Jesus was sanctioning tithing for New Testament Christians.

Compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. The New Testament does not compel Christians, but rather invites them to give generously in response to the needs of others, and as an expression of their love for God (CP 1Cor 16:1-2; 2Cor 8:1-15; 9:1-15; Ga 6:6-8; Jas 2:13-17; 1Jn 3:16-19). We learn from these scriptures that New Testament giving is voluntary, spontaneous and freely given, not from a sense of obligation nor with an intent to merit blessings. Giving is to be seen as a privilege, not an obligation. 1Cor 16:1-2 is used by those who promote tithing to teach that the money the Corinthians were to put aside each Sunday represented the tithe. 2Cor 8:2-4 is used to encourage Christians to tithe, yet in V8 Paul clearly states that he was not commanding the Corinthians to give; he only wanted them to prove the sincerity of their love for their brothers and sisters in Christ. In V7 he calls their giving an act of grace, which is the exact opposite of mandatory tithing. In 2Cor 9:5 Paul stresses the importance of the collection being seen as a willing gift, not as money that has been extorted from them (CP 1Cor 16:3-4 with 2Cor 8:2-4, 7-8 and 9:5). The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that New Testament giving under grace comes from what one has, not from what one does not have. Christians are only expected to give according to their means, and although there must a readiness and eagerness in giving, Christians do not have to run themselves into debt or reduce themselves to poverty level in order to give into God’s work. This is acceptable to God. The issue is one’s willingness to give – not the amount (CP Lu 11:41; 2Cor 8:11-12; 9:7). Christians must not feel bad if they are ever unable to give (CP 2Cor 8:13-15). This teaches that Christians who are well off should meet the needs of those who are not. In this way none will lack, and there will be equality for all, just like God directed the Israelites with the manna in the wilderness (CP Ex 16:16-18).

There are four things Christians must do in giving: they must give willingly from the heart, they must not give grudgingly; they must not give of compulsion; they must give cheerfully (CP 2Cor 8:12; 9:5, 7). Christians who give what they can to those in need will find that the grace of God furnishes a sufficiency for their own needs, and even more, in order that they may abound in good works for others (CP Psa 41:1-2; Pr 11:24-25; 19:17; 22:9; Ecc 11:1; Lu 6:38; 2Cor 9:6, 8-15). At the heart of all Christian giving is the acknowledgement that God is the creator, the owner, and the giver of all things, and what we give back to God is only a part of what He has given to us in the first place (CP Gen 1:1; Ex 19:5; De 8:7-20; 1Chr 29:10-16; Psa 24:1; 50:10-12; Hag 2:8; Jn 1:1-3; Jas 1:17; 2Pe 1:3). Everything Christians have belongs to the Lord. No one has anything that they had not first received from God.

Those who hold that tithing is obligatory for New Testament Christians also use He 7: 1-10 to teach that, as Abraham was the antecedent of all New Testament Christians and paid a tithe to Melchizedec, it is incumbent upon all New Testament Christians to tithe. They contend that Abraham was the representative tithe payer of all his seed to come, which Christians are (CP Ga 3:29). Now let us look at He 7:1-10, but in the context of the whole chapter to see what it really means (CP He 7:1-28). When kept in the context of the whole of Ch 7 it is plain to see that tithing, as being obligatory for New Testament Christians, is not being taught in V1-10 at all. Melchizedec is the subject, not Jesus, and tithing is mentioned only in the context of demonstrating the superiority of Melchizedec over Abraham and Levi in the first place, and the superiority of Christ’s eternal priesthood over the temporary Levitical priesthood in the second place, which makes the New Covenant superior to the Old. That is the theme of He 7, not tithing. Tithing is only incidental to proving that the New Covenant, of which Jesus is the mediator, is by far superior to the Old Covenant, and it cannot be made to mean anything else (CP He 7:19, 22-28; 8:6-13; 9:11-15). We also learn in these scriptures that the Old Covenant has been made obsolete in Christ and done way with in its entirety. That was how God designed it: the Old Covenant was only temporary; the New Covenant under Christ is everlasting (CP Hos 2;11 with Ro 3:21-22; 10:4; 2Cor 3;7-14; Ga 3:19-26; 4:21-31; 5:1-4; Eph 2:13-16; He 7:12, 18:22; 8:6-13; 9:8 -15; 10:1-10).The clear teaching in all these scriptures is that the Old Covenant, which includes the law on tithing, has been completely abolished in Christ and has no relevance for New Testament Christians. Yet those who stand for tithing argue that the tithe itself was not abolished, because it was established by Abraham four hundred and thirty years prior to the law when he tithed to Melchizedec in Gen 14:18-20, which we looked at earlier, and therefore it should be carried on by New Testament Christians. They use Ga 3:17-18 as their proof text. Let us see what it says, but also in context (CP Ga 3:13-18). This scripture cannot be used to teach that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedec should be continued. This has nothing to do with tithing, or Melchizedec. It is about the Covenant God made with Abraham. Paul is using the analogy of God’s Covenant with Abraham, and a legal agreement made between humans, to show that once the parties to it ratify an agreement, it stands forever – it cannot be annulled or voided. What Paul is teaching here is that the blessings God promised Abraham stand forever too. They were not affected by the law in any way (CP Gen 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-18; 15:1-18; 17:4-8; 22:15-18; 26:1-8; 28:1-4, 10-15 with Ro 4;1-25). This is the Covenant God made with Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until the seed of Abraham – Christ – came to inherit the promise, and distribute the blessings to all who receive Him by faith as saviour (CP Ga 3:6-16, 19-29). Everyone in Christ, regardless of nationality or sex, is the seed of Abraham and heir of God’s Covenant promise.

It is patently obvious from the scriptures studied thus far that none of them can be legitimately used to promote tithing as a New Testament Christian obligation. As stated at the outset of this study, there is no defining scripture anywhere in the bible to validate any teaching that it is incumbent upon New Testament Christians to tithe. As also stated previously, compulsory tithing under the law in the Old Testament does not translate to giving under grace in the New Testament. New Testament giving is centred entirety around stewardship – Christians giving of themselves completely to the work of God – which includes their time, their finances, and their material possessions (CP Mt 10:37-39; Mk 8:34-38; Lu 14:26-35).

None of this is teaching against New Testament Christians giving in to the work of God through their local church. Scriptures are very clear on the subject of giving – only those who sow into the Kingdom will reap the Kingdom benefits (CP Ga 6:6-10). Paul is defining God’s law of sowing and reaping here. It applies to every aspect of the Christian walk: Christians giving of themselves, their finances and their time to others; their financial support of the ministry, their moral behaviour, and their Christian service. Ga 6:9-10 teaches that while ever Christians keep doing good, in spite of the opposition they may encounter, in due course they will reap the fruit of the harvest. And notwithstanding that they are to do good unto all men, they are to be particularly concerned with the well - being of other Christians (CP Mt 25:31-46). All Christian giving has to be as to God, the Christians’ source, for whatever Christians do they are doing it as unto Jesus. Jesus equates Christians’ treatment of those in need with their treatment of Himself: what Christians do for them, they do for Him. The Christian walk is not only a spiritual walk, it must also serve the material needs of others, especially other Christians (CP Jas 2:13-17).

Here Christians are presented with the real test of their faith. Christians are not justified by works, but because they are justified by faith, they do the works. This proves their consecration to God’s service and confirms their love for God and for each other (CP 1Jn 3:16-19). The only faith that saves is that demonstrated by works out of Christians’ love for God. This scripture is the exact counterpart of Jn 3:16: “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. 1Jn 3:16-19 is the acid test of Christianity by which Christians know whether they are following the example of God’s love to others. If Christians are not willing to give of material things to others in need, they certainly would not lay down their lives for them. It is not enough that wealth and material possessions are acquired for self-gratification. They must always be made available for the work of God (CP Mt 6:19-24; Lu 12:13-21; 2Cor 9:5-6). Although God’s law of sowing and reaping dictates that blessings will always be returned for generosity, Christians must never give in order to receive. Giving must always be motivated by love.

It is the duty of all who are taught the word to help provide material support for those who teach the word. Those who minister the word are entitled to live off the word (CP 1Cor 9:7-14; Ga 6:6; 3 Jn 5-. No workers of the word should have to seek help in any form outside the church. Christians have a duty, which should be seen as a privilege, to contribute to the needs of every worker of the word. They must not be treated like beggars, but received, sent, and supported in a manner worthy of God (CP Mt 10:40-42; Lu 10:3-7; 1Ti 5:17-18). In Mt 10:41-42 Jesus promises that “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward”. This teaches Christians how important it is in God’s purposes to receive and support true messengers of the gospel.

In bringing this study to a close here it needs to be re-stated that while there is extensive teaching on Christians giving into the work of God in the New Testament, there are no scriptures whatever that teach tithing. What they do teach is that Christians belong to God and what they have is held as a trust for him. Their giving is done to help those in need and to advance the Kingdom of God. They are only obliged to give in accordance with their means, out of what they have, and the amount they give is not as important as their willingness to give it. Giving is seen as proof of their love. It is done sacrificially and voluntarily. In their giving Christians sow not only money, but also faith, time and service. To sum up, their giving is characterized by what Paul said in 2Cor 9:7, “every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”


It is clear that the vehement emphasis on tithe by most pentecostal pastors is for self gain and enrichment, I might be wrong about this statement though but that would be after you convince me otherwise.

Bobbyaf:
Let me repeat this question once more so that our Catholic friends can hear it. Does the wine that the priests administer in what is called the holy communion contain alcohol, or not?

@Bobbyaf

Yes, the alter wine used by Catholics for the holy communion contains alcohol.

And may I ask you a question;

Does the wine Jesus Christ shared with his apostle at the last supper contain alcohol or not?

Your problem is that your world revolves around the your warped version of protestantism and the lies fed into you. For your information, alcohol is not bad, and I know you would cry your eyes dry over that one again.

Too bad how myopic bigots come here to run their mouths without knowledge.

Bobbyaf:
I once heard a member of the RCC who said one of the reasons he stopped going to church services was because the priest smokes. Do you think that pastors, priests, and others leading out in church services should smoke? Do you think that it is ok for a Christian to smoke?

@Bobbyaf

Based on the fact that you are tied to bible and all it teaches, I would answer you in that manner;

where is it written in the Bible that a person should not smoke?

My answer goes to the person that said he refused to attand church services because a priest smoke;
If smoking is a sin, the priest would answer for his sin before God on the day of reckoning. And if because you a person feels a priest is a sinner thus you can abandon you God, you would personally answer for yourself on that day too. The priest for himself and every man for himself.

Bobbyaf:
Spoke to a Catholic member as to why they baptized babies, and he couldn't even supply a biblical basis for such. I felt sorry for him.

I further asked him to explain how has the RCC come to accept sprinkling as baptism. He said he'd have to get back to me on that matter.

Are there any able Catholic willing to explain the above?

@Bobbyaf

Before I answer your question, I want you to tell me, is Baptism necessary to get a man into heaven or not? What really is the significance of Baptism in Christianity, in order words, what is Baptism?

You question would be sufficiently answered.

Na real endurance!

"Regular ba ni cigarit, nagode, am'baka"

Chua!!!

Amingafar

Next time, pls call yourself a Fulani or Nupe since you are speaking from that perspective. Igalas are a very proud set of people, ask around, you would be told. Attah Ameh Oboni's story would give you an insight. We've never been (consciously) puppets of any tribe. You coming here to worship the north in the name of muslim and then calling yourself and an Igala is (and I swear to God is) very insultive to the Igala tribe. As for being northerners, the north has never indeed carried the Igalas along, the entire middle belt has always been used and then preserved for when next needed.

Please you are a Nupe Man, an Igala would never "d'unyi ta nw oko la" (literally: selling the home of your habitation to the far away farm) like you are desperately and shamefully doing here.

Was she also the one that negotiated the JTF takeover of the camp where the hostages were held?

was she also the one that negotiated the arrest of the militants?

did she also told the hostages themselves to lie by claiming their release was procured by JTF?

Was the company not aware of her sole efforts, why were they praising the JTF?

Why were both the president and the Governor praising the efforts of JTF and not hers?

Alot of pointers!

@Lagosshia take a look,


Ali is the central figure at the origin of the Shia / Sunni split which occurred in the decades immediately following the death of the Prophet in 632. Sunnis regard Ali as the fourth and last of the "rightly guided caliphs" (successors to Mohammed (pbuh) as leader of the Muslims) following on from Abu Bakr 632-634, Umar 634-644 and Uthman 644-656. Shias feel that Ali should have been the first caliph and that the caliphate should pass down only to direct descendants of Mohammed (pbuh) via Ali and Fatima, They often refer to themselves as ahl al bayt or "people of the house" [of the prophet].

When Uthman was murdered while at prayer, Ali finally succeeded to the caliphate. Ali was, however, opposed by Aisha, wife of the Prophet (pbuh) and daughter of Abu Bakr, who accused him of being lax in bringing Uthman's killers to justice. After Ali's army defeated Aisha's forces at the Battle of the Camel in 656, she apologized to Ali and was allowed to return to her home in Madinah where she withdrew from public life.

However, Ali was not able to overcome the forces of Mu'awiya Ummayad, Uthman's cousin and governor of Damascus, who also refused to recognize him until Uthman's killers had been apprehended. At the Battle of Suffin Mu'awiya's soldiers stuck verses of the Quran onto the ends of their spears with the result that Ali's pious supporters refused to fight them. Ali was forced to seek a compromise with Mu'awiya, but this so shocked some of his die-hard supporters who regarded it as a betrayal that he was struck down by one of his own men in 661.

Mu'awiya declared himself caliph. Ali's elder son Hassan accepted a pension in return for not pursuing his claim to the caliphate. He died within a year, allegedly poisoned. Ali's younger son Hussein agreed to put his claim to the caliphate on hold until Mu'awiya's death. However, when Mu'awiya finally died in 680, his son Yazid usurped the caliphate. Hussein led an army against Yazid but, hopelessly outnumbered, he and his men were slaughtered at the Battle of Karbala (in modern day Iraq). Hussein's infant son, Ali, survived so the line continued. Yazid formed the hereditary Ummayad dynasty. The division between the Shia and what came to be known as the Sunni was set.

An opportunity for Muslim unity arose in the 750's CE. In 750 except for a few who managed to flee to Spain, almost the entire Ummayad aristocracy was wiped out following the Battle of Zab in Egypt in a revolt led by Abu Al Abbass al-Saffah and aided by considerable Shia support. It was envisaged that the Shia spiritual leader Jafar As-Siddiq, great-grandson of Hussein be installed as Caliph. But when Abbass died in 754, this arrangement had not yet been finalised and Abbas' son Al Mansur murdered Jafar, seized the caliphate for himself and founded the Baghdad-based Abbassid dynasty which prevailed until the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258.

Theological Differences and Attempts at promoting Unity
The line of Mohammed (pbuh) through Ali and Hussein became extinct in 873CE when the last Shia Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who had no brothers disappeared within days of inheriting the title at the age of four. The Shias refused, however, to accept that he had died, preferring to believe that he was merely "hidden" and would return. When after several centuries this failed to happen, spiritual power passed to the ulema, a council of twelve scholars who elected a supreme Imam. The best known modern example of the Shia supreme Imam is the late Ayyatollah Khomeni, whose portrait hangs in many Shia homes. The Shia Imam has come to be imbued with Pope-like infallibility and the Shia religious hierarchy is not dissimilar in structure and religious power to that of the Catholic Church within Christianity. Sunni Islam, in contrast, more closely resembles the myriad independent churches of American Protestantism. Sunnis do not have a formal clergy, just scholars and jurists, who may offer non-binding opinions. Shias believe that their supreme Imam is a fully spiritual guide, inheriting some of Muhammad's inspiration ("light" . Their imams are believed to be inerrant interpreters of law and tradition. Shia theology is distinguished by its glorification of Ali. In Shia Islam there is a strong theme of martyrdom and suffering, focusing on deaths of Ali and, particularly, Hussein plus other important figures in the Shia succession. Shi`ism attracted other dissenting groups, especially representatives of older non-Arab (Mawali) civilizations (Persian, Indian, etc.) that felt they had not been treated fairly by the Arab Muslims.

Sunnis and Shias agree on the core fundamentals of Islam - the Five Pillars - and recognize each others as Muslims. In 1959 Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot, Head of the School of Theology at Al Azhar university in Cairo, the most august seat of learning of Sunni Islam and the oldest university in the world, issued a fatwa (ruling) recognizing the legitimacy of the Jafari School of Law to which most Shias belong. As a point of interest, the Jafari School is named after its founder Imam Jafaf Sidiq who was a direct descendent through two different lines of the Sunni Caliph Abu Bakr. And Al Azhar University, though now Sunni, was actually founded by the Shia Fatimid dynasty in 969CE.

However, there remain significant differences between the two forms of Islam and these are what tend to be emphasized. Many Sunni's would contend that Shias seem to take the fundamentals of Islam very much for granted, shunting them into the background and dwelling on the martyrdoms of Ali and Hussein. This is best illustrated at Ashura when each evening over a period of ten days the Shias commemorate the Battle of Karbala, with a wailing Imam whipping the congregation up into a frenzy of tears and chest beating. It is alleged that instead of missionary work to non-Muslims, the Shia harbor a deep-seated disdain towards Sunni Islam and prefer to devote their attention to winning over other Muslims to their group. There is ongoing violent strife between Sunnis and Shias in Pakistan. On the other hand, in recent years there has been signification co-operation between the two groups in the Lebanon. And some of the most dynamic developments in Islam today are taking place in Shia-dominated Iran.

Amingafar

You must be from Ankpa (Main town or immediate environ), they are the ones that would do anything just to be called hausa even when the hausas would never give a damn about them when it really matters.

The larger Igala people are far from being northerners, they are best called middle belters and they are getting awakened. Gone are the days when everything north is acceptable to them.

Yea, Exactly the masquerade called 'Egwu Affia' in Igala is what we the Idomas call 'Alekwu'.

Alekwu literally mean ancestors. About 8 metres tall, chants proverbs and parables, sometimes in Igala language even. Just no difference.

They are actually typical Igala proverbs. I was brought up at home, a village close to Oturkpo, and given the fact that Igala is well spoken in my village, though mostly among the elders, I should atleast be able to 'kpita Igala' a little bit.

When I say I speak broken Igala, I'm not also saying that I can't contemplate near perfect Igala. I understand it, its just speaking it that's the problem. With time though, 'enw ki kp'ane na a d'oji dufu fai.' (Literally: That which cracks the land will bring out its head with time).

Mejibo.

BY EDWIN OLOFU

November 19, 2010 12:33AM
Print print Email email Share Share


The Kano State Governor, Ibrahim Shekarau has called on all Muslims in the country to treat the forthcoming voters’ registration as a jihad that require the participation of all those desirous of change in the country.

The governor warns that the forthcoming voters’ registration scheduled for January 8-22 is compulsory for every Muslim, stressing that, “it is a religious duty that no one should be excused.” “It is only through the process that credible leaders can be elected.” He therefore claimed that “the process must be treated as a jihad.” Mr Shekarau made this known while receiving the Emir of Kano, Ado Bayero at the state government house for the eid Kabir celebration.

Corroborating the governor’s stand ,the Emir also mandated that “no faithful (Muslim) should be excused from the voters’ registration exercise, as long as he/she is hale and hearty during the exercise,” adding that it is part of religious duty to make the national exercise a success.Mr Shekarau, noted that “it is compulsory for all faithfuls to partake in the national exercise.” He explained that democracy has come to stay in Nigeria and the only way to elect leaders of choice starts with the impending registration processes.

The governor also said that the introduction of sharia law in the state has helped “stabilized Kano social circle,” stressing that moral decadence has been on steady decline compared to what it was before his ascension to power in 2003.Mr Shekarau evaluating his two terms in office as the governor of the state since 1999 noted that he has elevated the state’s moral standard through the societal reorientation programme of his administration, pointing out that it is of hope that those that will succeed him will improve on the record.

The Emir commended the governor for the support to the emirate council during the last 7 years, adding that ‘he hopes that the gesture will be improved on outside the office.” He urged the citizenry to imbibe peace which he claimed is essential for “a society to record progress.”

Hello, I'm Idoma but can speak broken Igala (If you know what I mean).

I'm from Benue, considering the distance of my town from the closest Igala town, I would say I'm in the heart of Idomaland, but, every old man in my village seem to understand Igala. We the younger ones can only pick few words.

Also, I've ever visited an Igala town and I was to suprised that everybody, ie both old and young understand both Igala and Idoma! Why is that?

Again, on travelling out, I saw that Igalas are often mistaken for Idomas and verse versa. And they tend to act like brothers whenever they meet each other.

Meanwhile:

Agboni ma kpe r'agboni

Ogijo da ne, Ache a ch'Imoto n

Alu Ogijo Ma gbulu Omi Eka

Ukpa n'alu amo, Unedo ki nya ch'omi mo

Una una ma j'odo abia.

Popular proverbs used by elders in my village whenever that they want Igala, not without putting the phrase "the Igalas said".

Megba chaka.

I hope to start an Idoma threat like this someday.

Hey, what is wrong with AK47? Its still the best assault rifle in the world!

On the eve of All Saints' Day, 1st Nov, 2010, the faithful gathered at the Assyrian Catholic Church of Our Lady of Salvation in Baghdad.

As Father Wassim Sabih finished the Mass, eight al Qaeda stormed in, began shooting and forced him to the floor. As the priest pleaded that his parishioners be spared, they executed him.

When security forces broke in, the killers threw grenades to finish off the surviving Christians and detonated explosive-laden vests to kill the police. The toll was 46 parishioners and two priests killed, 78 others wounded, many in critical condition after losing limbs.

Within 48 hours, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia issued a bulletin: ``All Christian centers, organizations and institutions, leaders and followers, are legitimate targets.''

It was the worst massacre of Christians yet. For Assyrian Catholics known as Chaldeans, whose ancestors were converted by St. Thomas the Apostle, the U.S. war of liberation has been seven years of hell. Estimates of the number of Christians in Iraq in 2003 vary from 800,000 to 1.5 million. But hundreds of thousands have fled since then. Seven of the 14 churches in Baghdad have closed, and two-thirds of the city's 500,000 Christians are gone.

While Saddam Hussein, a secularist, had protected religious minorities, Muslim vigilantes -- Shia, Sunni and Kurd, as well as al Qaeda -- have attacked Christians who have endured kidnappings, pillage, despoils, beheadings and assassinations. And what has happened to this Christian community must be marked down as one of the predictable and predicted consequences of America's war in Iraq.

In editor Tom Fleming's Chronicles, just days before President Bush ordered the invasion, columnist Wayne Allensworth warned pointedly:

``Iraqi Christians fear they will be the first victims of a war that might dismember their country, unleashing ethnic and religious conflicts that Baghdad had previously suppressed. Tariq, a Christian merchant in Baghdad, told the French weekly Marianne that `If the United States goes to war against our country . . . (t)he Wahhabis and other fundamentalists will take advantage of the confusion to throw us out of our homes, destroy us as a community and declare Iraq an Islamic nation.'

``If recent history is any indication, Tariq has cause for concern,`` wrote Allensworth. ``The Shiite uprising in southern Iraq during the first Gulf War -- encouraged and then abandoned by Washington -- targeted Christians. Many Christians had supported Saddam's regime . . . as their best hope of survival in the Islamic Middle East.''

``We let the Shia genie out of the bottle,`` said a rueful Yitzhak Rabin after Israel's invasion of Lebanon gave birth to Hezbollah.

We Americans did the same with our wars against Saddam's Iraq.

Why is Christianity being murdered in its cradle by Muslim fanatics?

Multiple reasons. Islamic militancy. The rise of ethnic nationalism that conflates tribal and religious identity. Hatred of America for its domination of the region, for our war on terror that they see as a war on Islam and for our support of Israel in its suppression of the Palestinians. Christians across the Middle East are now seen as both members of an alien religion and a fifth column of the Crusaders inside their camp.

Paul Marshall of Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom warns that we may be in for another great wave of persecution, ``as Christians flee the Palestinian areas, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt.''

Christians are gone from Jerusalem, gone from Nazareth, gone from Bethlehem. From Egypt to Iran, the Vatican counts 17 million left. ``Across the Middle East,`` writes Robert Fisk in The Independent, ``it is the same story of despairing -- sometimes frightened -- Christian minorities, and of an exodus that reaches almost Biblical proportions.``

America remains the most Christianized of the Western nations. Yet, the protests of the White House, State Department and major media over the eradication of Christianity in the Middle East is muted. Of what worth these wars for democracy if we end up freeing fanatics to annihilate communities or expel populations of our own Christian brothers and sisters across the Middle East.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/13/1923355/christians-under-siege.html#ixzz15WJ4UtFv

@Vadexcool

Your article has actually raised no solid contention. Are you saying that xtian don't know that Jesus spoke Aramaic? We know!

Are you saying that the name yeshua is called differently in different languages? Offcourse we know!

Are you saying that the name Yeshua does not mean 'salvation' and yet meant 'saved' or 'safety'? Are those two words not derivatives of 'salvation'?

Just give yourself rest, you have no point here.