₦airaland Forum

Gombs:
Winsomex, 11 posts all day in that Facebook page you pasted here.

These 11 posts were from 5 people. Zadok 5, you had two (you were busy of course), the rest splitted the four slots.. PastorKun even abandoned you...

Come hug it out
I'd patiently wait for the end of that thread. I'd wait.

You forgot to give us one statistic - the number of views and the names of the viewers.
Please do that and get back to us.

Gombs:
Hey... What pastor was referring to was simply,..... Darn! Read the last paragraph again... This time slowly.

By the way, I'm watching the Loveworld Festival of Music and Arts carnival (Day 2) happening live in SA. See my mentor flexing, mehn...watch out for the impact of this program. Many shall come to the knowledge of Christ through music and arts.

I'd soon share some videos.

You are the one who hasn't taken to read my post and the passages of scripture I referred you to. As usual you have taken a position that your devotional and 'hero' must be right and every other person wrong. 

You may choose to revel in your new role as an e-comedian in NL. That is your business. 

If CE chooses to become world class entertainer holding carnivals all over the world so be it. 

God's work must be done in His own way to merit and receive His acceptance. 

If you actually went through this my post:
"This passage:
2 Corinthians 5:17 says "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." 
primarily has to do with change in the believer's spiritual status. Not the physical. If applied to Paul who wrote it the added comments by your m-o-g cannot find a place. 

Start reading from verse one and see if Paul's flow of thought lines up with your devotional. 

Go to chapter 6 and read particularly verses 4 & 5 then go down to verse 10 and you'll agree then that what Paul was talking about in 2 Cor. 5:17 has little to do with " a life of limitless possibilities"."
you would have seen clearly that that portion of scripture goes against the last paragraph of your devotional.

Gombs:
A little devotion with the lads ain't a bad idea now, is it?


Kunle, I spot you joor...join us biko



Be right back.

This passage:
2 Corinthians 5:17 says "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." 
primarily has to do with change in the believer's spiritual status. Not the physical. If applied to Paul who wrote it the added comments by your m-o-g cannot find a place. 

Start reading from verse one and see if Paul's flow of thought lines up with your devotional. 

Go to chapter 6 and read particularly verses 4 & 5 then go down to verse 10 and you'll agree then that what Paul was talking about in 2 Cor. 5:17 has little to do with " a life of limitless possibilities".

Gombs:
Trustman... I have chosen to ignore you, no offence inteded please. NB:Jesus was NEVER sick.

Your refusal to respond has ended up showing how skewed your views on these two issues are. That skewness may then be a pointer to a falsity, error or outright deceit. All of these may be leading us to what WinsomeX has been shouting out loud on this thread. 

Btw, Jesus in his humanity was different from the rest of mankind in at least one way. I guess you folks don't equally understand that.

Gombs:
Sammied, well done. You've done a lot here already.

Look carefully, see what WX wrote about Galatians church. They are same as the Corinthians church. They both had issues of a false doctrine esp of salvation, they mixed Christianity with Judaism, etc.

Care less about WX, like you rightly said... He prides himself in his e-spiritual police ministry.

Statements like 'It's a lie', 'You don't get it' 'Rubbish', etc don't really answer a question or an issue. 

They end up being attempts at making the one on the opposite side appear wrong when no genuine rebuttal is really given. 

Gombs in particular seem to be mastering in e-comedy and sarcasm. 

If 'it's a lie' then show what the 'truth' is. If 'you don't get it' then make your position clearer. If 'it's rubbish' then provide the good side. If 'rebuke' is to be done in love show how the BIBLE prescribes it. We can then use the Bible yardstick not just to evaluate WinsomeX but also Gombs and everyone else. 

If anyone 'needs some thick lensed glasses' it is Gombs. Because he feels "They think it's their God given right to criticise." he has made it his 'self-given right' to equally 'criticise' without thinking he's doing the same thing as 'them'. He has found an ally in Sammied who appear to tickle him at every turn. 
So who has the 'right'?

I've said elsewhere on this thread that:
"The issue ultimately should be whether or not what is being preached agrees with the Scripture. The word of God should be more highly regarded than anything else - whether man or man's teachings."

Let's take how you folks in CE deal with a few issues - sickness and poverty. What you do is take some portions of scripture and then conclude like Gombs did that: 
"The good book just told us Jesus broke the powers of he who had the power of death and free all those who's been in bondage of fear of death. Sickness and diseases, poverty etc are not of God, they put alot of folks under bondage, and subsequently fear of death.". 

What you fail to do is to reconcile this your position with portions of scripture like: 
1. Jesus Christ's identification with the following -
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'(Matthew 25). 

2. Paul' references to the sick - 
1 Timothy 5:23 "(No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)"
2 Timothy 4:20 "Erastus remained at Corinth, and I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus."

3. James' references to the poor and sick - 
James 2:2-4 "2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,
3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet,"
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"
James 2:5 "Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"
James 2:15-17 "15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
James 5:14 "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

My question then, for starters, to Gombs & Co is this: how do you reconcile your stand in CE on Sickness and poverty with these portions of Scripture I have quoted above?

Ubenedictus:
.....

My position is tha by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ a wholesome sacrifices was offered to God

.......

Kindly further clarify this your above statement:  

Are you saying that the suffering and death inflicted on Jesus Christ by man became a pleasing sacrifice to God or that Jesus' acceptance to take on the suffering and death inflicted by man became the pleasing sacrifice to God?

Gombs:
Have ye the truth? if 'Yes', what have you done with it?

Jesus will ask you this someday.

"28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6)

vooks:
Hello Pastor,
Doctrines don't grow in the forest, and nor are they propagated by dolphins; they are taught by men, and the purveyors of false doctrines are false teachers. Hell is not reserved for false doctrines but for false teachers.

So if Oyaks propagates falsehoods, we are supposed to JUDGE it. It would be very unthinking judging doctrines minus their purveyors. Recently, some four terrorists stormed a university and butchered 147 kids. According to Joagbaje, judge the doctrine, those were very innocent boys, in fact calling them terrorists is insulting. They are not even murderers, but murder of the 147 they did
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/04/africa/kenya-garissa-university-witnesses/


Let's look at how scriptures treat false teachers\prophet

Matthew 7:15 (KJV)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves

2 Cor 11:13 (KJV)
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ

2Peter 2:1 (KJV)
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction

The point is , you can't be wary of false doctrines while completely indifferent/ignorant of their teachers

PS: Has it ever occurred to you how this 'judge not' is applied selectively to pastors and not the laity/congregation?



Cc Winsomex, Trustman,SirJohn,Gombs

Starting from Jesus Christ, when he condemned false teachings he mentioned the purveyors - the Pharisees & Co. 
"Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Mathew 16:6
"1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you-but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues
7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others." (Mathew 23). 

The Apostles also did the same. Paul was specific in Galatians when he mentioned Peter's hypocrisy. He said he "opposed him to his face". 
 
The issue ultimately should be whether or not what is being preached agrees with the Scripture. The word of God should be more highly regarded than anything else - whether man or man's teachings.

Gombs:

A symbol is a representation of something. 
MuttleyLaff has done some work in trying to open your eyes to what the cross stands for. I just hope you've got some lesson from there. If you don't then you really need help. 

One needs to start from the scratch to teach you guys basics of Christianity. So the big question is - where does one start in order to get the baggage out?

Salvation is a 'package'. In other words, salvation in Christ has many aspects and provisions that came with it in one package deal. So when we talk about 'reconciliation', 'redemption', atonement, 'justification', etc they are all contained in the 'package'. 
Secondly, it is always a 'systematic' or 'categorical' putting together of scripture that helps with a better or more comprehensive understanding of each of the areas of a subject in scripture that one wants to focus on. Therefore picking just a single verse to explain or support an issue does not do justice to it most of the time. You need to string together related portions of scripture to get a better picture. 

Your m-o-g in what you yourself called your "cult book" said: 
"Our justification isn't because Jesus "paid" for our sins;" 
And also that: 
"The new creation isn't a product of the death and burial of Jesus Christ, but of His resurrection! "
So many questions can readily come to mind - 
1. Would there have been justification if our sins were not paid for?
2. Where was our sins paid for; on the cross or at the resurrection?
3. Was there any 'work' on our behalf by Christ at the resurrection or was the resurrection a display of his finished work and so represented part and parcel of his work ?
4. Can the resurrection be divorced then from Christ' death and burial?

Many more questions can be asked but let's stop at these. 

If we take your following statement to be correct:
"You were justified the moment you got born again (new creation), they both came instateneously, not one before or after the other." then the following from your "cult book" cannot be right:
"You're justified, because you're a new creation."
So justification did not come as a result (because) of being a new creation. 
Justification as well as being new creation and all the other things ALL became the believer's at the moment of salvation. 

Undoubtedly without the cross (a historical incident clearly attested to by the gospels and epistles) there would be no Christianity. The cross represents all that God in love did to accomplish salvation for mankind. The cancellation of all that stood against us was done at the cross:
"by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." Colossians 2:14

Our justification was made possible because Christ paid for it at the cross. There would be no new creation (a new SPIRITUAL species and not a new physically created man - there's a whole lot of difference; no physical genetic change took place) without Christ's work on our behalf. And the cross was a high point in this work. 

Therefore to say that the cross, a defining moment in man's history, birthed Christianity is absolutely not in question.

[quote author=Gombs post=32624957][/quote]I will come back and show you the flaws in your positions.

Gombs:
WinsomeX, you gotta just admit you were wrong to say Christianity started at the cross. When I read today's devotional (our cult book), I couldn't help but thank God for what Jesus did for the world of men.

These are plain and great truths. Anyone who has issues with this is an enemy of the gospel, either out of sheer ignorance or deception. However, whosoever is willing to be taught of the Spirit with be like the Bereans, or have an open heart to receive God's Word that'll be able to save them.

You see why you need get off your project here on NL and go tell everyone about Christ? But how can you tell them if you do not know Christ enough and what He did for us, especially by His ressurection? If you deny the word of God its efficacy by your traditions?

That's where I come in, I can only intercede that you may come to the knowledge of truth, unto all goodness.

The Bible said problems came to folks BECAUSE OF THE WORD, and if CE keeps being attacked by folks like you, it shows it's of the Word. No one will greatly attack Churches like Olumba Olumba, Brotherhood of light and star etc churches as they do CE, and I am no surprised.

Good morning

What I don't see you do is address specific issues winsomeX had raised about CE. 
What I see you do is diverting attention away from the issues he has raised. 
You say things like " I hope not to be back here again." then you again reappear. If you want to stay why not address specific issues raised. Pick them up one by one and deal with them. 

Having said that I'd like you to answer this question: why has the sign of the cross been a major symbol in Christianity?
One more thing - which comes first, justification or being a new creation?

Joagbaje:
[/quote][quote]

I thought the issue was clear - the case of one Jeff (not many Jeffs or Jeff plus other persons) and the resultant challenge by you. 
The question now is: Did sirJohn prove you wrong on that matter? 
What the rest of us are seeing is yes, he did. 
So integrity demands that you pay him or perhaps beg for release. 

However what we see you do is refuse to own up but try to take twists and turns to evade the issue. Why bring up other issues unrelated to Jeff's case or try to 'push' the blame on him. See what you wrote:
 'I didn't make a mistake .'
'I saw slight difference in the appearance but I assumed it was due to his sickness . '
'So if there was a mistake . It's from the guy ... ...'
'Satan can set any one up.'
So, in all these what are you saying? That what you claimed was true but has now turned out otherwise was either Jeff's fault or Satan's?

It is unfortunate that many of you CE folks on this forum never want to admit when you're wrong. Maybe that stems from some wrong teaching like winsomeX is bringing up in this thread. 

The scripture says "Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." 

Not focusing on Jeff's issue and trying to bring up other cases looks to me diversionary. If you were deceived to make a wrong claim own up. You're behaving like Adam who blamed his wrong action on the woman. God did not excuse him because of that. Neither should you think you should be in this case

Ubenedictus:
[size=5pt]He continues

That's what's happening in Psalm 22. It starts out with the psalmist feeling forsaken and abandoned. "Why have you forsaken me? … I cry out by day, but you do not answer." But he's not literally forsaken, any more than the other psalms mean that God was literally forgetting the psalmist forever.
It's expressing how the psalmist felt at the time.
But that's not the end of the story. Like the other psalms of lament, there's a pivot point.
Several, in fact. Verse 9: "Yet you brought me out of the womb … from my mother's womb you have been my God." Verse 19: "But you, Lord, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me." The psalm is not a psalm of forsakenness. It starts out that way, but it shifts to
confidence in God's deliverance. Verse 22: "I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you." And here's the key verse, verse 24: "For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for
help."
Here is a direct refutation of the notion that the Father turned his face away from the Son. But the refutation is not as important
as the pivot. Jesus is declaring: Right now, you are witnessing Psalm 22. I seem forsaken right now, but my death is not the end of the story. God has not despised my suffering. I will be vindicated. The Lord has heard my cry. Because death is not the end.
Verse 30–31: "Future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!"


Jesus is not saying that God has forsaken him. He's declaring the opposite. He's saying that God is with him, even in this time of seeming abandonment, and that God will vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

The closest modern analogy I can come up with might be something like this. Imagine
that later on this election year, this summer, the President is on the campaign trail. And despite his security, an assassin gets in and
shoots him. As the President falls to the ground, he says, "I still have a dream." And then he dies.
Now imagine everybody saying, "Hmmm, his last words were 'I still have a dream.' I wonder what that means. What was his dream? Was he napping on the campaign
bus? What was it about?" No, we'd all recognize that he was making an allusion to Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. He'd be
saying that this dream is still alive, that it did not stop with MLK's death, and it would not stop with his.
It's the same way with "My God, my God" on the cross. It's a biblical allusion, and the point of Psalm 22 is not about being forsaken. After all, David wrote Psalm 22.
Was David saying that God had forsaken him forever? No. The literary genre of the psalm
of lament shows that David was saying that he felt like God had forsaken him. That the odds were against him. That things looked
really bad right then. But that was not the end of the story. David still had confidence that God would hear his cry. God did not abandon David. And God did not abandon
Jesus. The clearest evidence of that, besides the rest of Psalm 22, is Jesus' final words on the cross, "Father, into your hands I commit
my spirit." The Father had not forsaken him.
God was still his Father. Jesus was still his Son.

[/size]

Welcome back!
I await your reaction to my last post.

Gombs:
Don't mind DB, he knows how the Church of God should be like, yet, he's made no effort to start a church, according to how God 'has shown him'.

He finds fault in almost all ministers, and ministries, he can't name a minister or author that completely endorses his kind of Christianity.

He does not have a spiritual head, he is not an author, he is not a pastor, teacher, etc, he is the 'true gospel preacher'. He has a problem with 'money' and 'church' in one sentence. He called Hagin, a failure, Kenyon a fraud, Oyedepo a thief, Oyakhilome an adulterer, RCCG worshippers he called brood of vipers littering Lagos/Ibadan Expway and Monroe? Yet, he hasn't done anything for the kingdom except writing blogs and NL, doing more harm to the body of Christ with his idea of Christianity.

That, is the man WinsomeX, aka Drummaboy. His doctrines and teachings? Jesus was ill at a time, their is no such thing as God kind of faith, health and wealth are not part of Jesus' plan for the new creation, tithing is done away with, WoF is devilish, CE is a cult, christianity began at the cross and not the resurrection, speaking in tongues is gibberish, etc

Next you'd see "CE has a currency" "CE will produce the anti Christ" etc. Watch out

Now you're doing exactly what you accuse him of - paint him black!

But do you hero-worship your pastor chris?
Do you apply 1 Corinthians 3:21 to him? If so how?

davien:
You're basically using a circular argument here....lol

New testament writers are evidence of "jesus" existence as the author of Harry potter is evidence of hogwards'

And perhaps you don't know that early historians were mostly Christians for the first half of western development....

What is your definition of historicity?
Maybe that can make us understand you better or see you in a brighter light.

davien:

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.”
In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

The rest are answered here...

c

Does he think Julius Caesar existed ?
If so based on what?

Ubenedictus:
you seem to be forgeting a crucial detail, Is 53:8, it says by oppression he was taken away.

Does that mean God was the achitech of such oppression? Because you seem to be saying God is the active cause of Christ suffering. the cross was a punishment but importantly an unjust punishment. the bible says it is "oppression".

Was it God who was "oppressing his son and pouring wrath on him or was the cross the oppression and injustice of man? Judge for yourself and see how you make God a sinner who oppresses his son.

when I look at the cross I certainly do not see God pouring wrath! What I see is the injustice of men who crucified an innocent man, a holy victim who willingly and sacrificially surrendered himself to his unjust killer and offer himself to the father, I see Christ who by bearing injustice merited glory for all who believe in him, I see his humility and obedience that saves me. I see the father who accepts the matyrdom of his only son and for his sake reckons righteousness on all who believe in him. the cross is not the expression of divine wrath it is instead an expression of divine love. God wasn't pouring wrath on the son, instead the merits of Christ averted the wrath I deserve. Atonment isn't about pouring wrath on the innocent but averting wrath by performance of some good.

Peace

If I get you right, the position you hold is that Jesus lived a life that pleased the Father and as a result the Father accepted that as a satisfactory offering for sin. The cross was therefore not a place where punishment was put on him for mankind's sin but a place where Jesus simply showed that he willing to remain sinless no matter what MAN (not GOD) did to him.  You stop just there. It will be helpful if can confirm if this is so. 

However, you need to explain how ALL portions that talk about Christ's payment for sin tie together before a robust position can be arrived at. 

For example, what is your understanding of:
1. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,"
Cf Hebrews 13:12 "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood."

2. Romans 3:24&25 "24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?

Ubenedictus:
With those points dealt with then I'll says the texts below agree with me.


amen! He gave himself as a sacrifice unto death, a death that clease us and is so value-able that is redeems us from our iniquities and give us grace to do good.


or it simply means he has finish his part in our salvation, he has offered totally himself in a sacrificial death?


usually I don't mind the term substitute when talking about the atonement, infact I used it myself sometimes, Christ did offer a sacrifice for sins he didn't commit so I usually allow people say "substitute" by i do not know the sense in which you use the term, Jesus physical death wasn't as a substitute for our own physical death, we will die physically and nobody was substituted for that. Instead the atonement of Christ is more exactly describe as vicarious in the sense of "on behalf of the other". Christ died for you mean he died for your sake not that he is a substitute for your physical death.

The types of offerings required and used under the Levitical Offerings varied and so were their applications and implications. Levitical offerings varied in such a way that different kinds of animals were involved, some were wholly burnt, others partly burnt. Some involved blood, others were bloodless offerings. The methods of preparation or administrations also varied. There were those the rich could afford and also those that the poor could provide from their meager means. Sometimes the priests killed the animal to be sacrificed. At other times the offerer did the killing.

So, that one offering was animal sacrifice and another grain offering should not make us want to use the items involved and method of offering come to any unnecessary conclusion. By the way most of the offerings (both animal and others) went through fire and fire signifies judgement!

In the New Testament, for example, Jesus Christ described himself as ‘the door’ and also as “the bread’. There are no similarities between these 2 physically speaking. So it is the message he – Jesus – wants to pass across by using these illustrations that the reader should seek to get.

In the same way it is the central message that each of the Levitical Offerings were meant to convey that should be the focus of anyone studying them.

Now coming back to our core issue: Jesus’ substitutionary death, I think you need to see these passages and tell me if they don’t talk of substitution or punishment –
Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up?
Hebrews 13:11-12 “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” Notice here; ‘Jesus also suffered’

Unlike your attempt at Isaiah 53: 5,6 I believe the issue of punishment is clear there:
“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed”
What does it mean to chastise if not to inflict punishment on someone? Is this passage not clear as to fact that things were done to Christ because of our sins?

These passages all talk of Christ taking our place. Why? Because if all have sinned and the wages of sin demands God’s wrath poured out on man; then what could Jesus have done other than pay the price required by God for mankind’s sin problem?

The Eucharist
When Jesus said in Luke 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you ...” what did he mean? Obviously he was ‘sacrificing’ something for us. Did the nature of that sacrifice involve some form of punishment?

The Cross
Ordinarily the cross was an instrument of punishment and judgment. God’s choosing of the cross as the place for Jesus’ crucifixion must have been deliberate rather than uncalculated. It must have been meant to pass across a message in no uncertain terms.

So when closely looked at, it is obvious that the going to the cross, something that caused Christ a lot of agony, could not have been a simple painless anguish-free incident. His substitutionary work on the cross, which we may not fully understand on this side of eternity, is the price Christ paid to meet the righteous requirements of our holy God.

Ubenedictus:
you have it upside down, my arguement is that penal substitution is not a Christian teaching, its origin is from the 16th century.

Put in other words, many believe wrongly that Jesus was penalised in their place, that teaching is relatively new and inconsistent with who God is.


I didn't claim the Christian God is unjust, I instead condemned the belief system that portrays him as such.

I am of the opinion you are intelligent enough to understand my post and will kindly request you don't misrepresent what I said.

I was not really sure if you had finished responding to my last submission. However look at the following issues.

First you make this statement:

Before I go on I must state that I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me and offered an atoning sacrifice for my sin that suffice for all sins! But I do not believe that God punished or penalise his son in place of me.

And then this:

himself, he gave himself as a sacrifice.

[/quote]What is your understanding of the word ‘sacrifice’?
What is your explanation of ‘he gave himself as a sacrifice’?
What do you understand by your words – ‘I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me’?

Maybe when these are clarified you’ll get a better picture.

Ubenedictus:
himself, he gave himself as a sacrifice.

Q – What is an ‘Atoning sacrifice’?
A – A payment made (an amend made) for the sin offense against God.

Q – Why was an ‘atoning sacrifice’ necessary?
A – In order to appease God for the wrong done against him.

Q – What was the wrong done?
A – Mankind’s sin (act of disobedience) against God.

Q – How did Jesus become an atoning sacrifice?
A – Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment for our sins.
God the father judged our sins in Christ’s body on the cross – 1 Peter 2:24 “He
himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live
for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been.”
He (Christ) made the payment for our sins on the cross – Isaiah 53: 6 “We all, like
sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid
on him the iniquity of us all.”
Titus 2:14 “ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify
for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”
After Jesus Christ paid our debt in full on the cross he said “It is finished” (John
19:30a) before he died physically.
He was therefore substituted in our place to pay for or atone for man’s sin problem.
He died then as a substitute for us – Romans 5: 8 “But God demonstrates his own
love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
He did not die for his own sins.
He died (as a substitute) for the sins of others – mankind.
“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all …” Romans 8:32a

Can a third person 'bail out' another who is in need of bail? Certainly 'Yes'
Would it cost such a one who bails another something? Definitely 'Yes'
That is the transaction done in Christ's substitutionary death.
Love motivated it. Grace made it a reality.

SirJohn:
So gombs, show me how you came about your 'coercion' theory or didn't Joagbaje show you this convo between me and him where I told him why I made Jeff an offer?

Or maybe Joagabje should tell us why a member of his church who was supposedly healed of HIV have refused picking his calls

Or better still can you explain why Jeff absconded when he was told a fresh test would be conducted on him

Maybe still he should also explain how either he or Mike was replying me from Jeffs phone even when they claimed that he had absconded and that they could not reach him.

If you claim the investigation isn't over, can you please explain why the hospital that Jeff claimed to have tested negative denied having any such record? what more do you need to trash his claim?

Gombs needs to answer intelligently to this or apologize and keep his mouth shut for good.

Gombs:
^^
You are sorely dishonest. It's appalling you could be this dishonest and yet want to be a standard for others.

I'd be back.

What or where is dishonesty in what he posted?
Think straight man! Think straight!!

CAPTIVATOR:
AS MAN, AS GOD ! That classification was done by humans NOT the scripture .

When u see something extra ordinary , u say it signifies God .

When u see a display of weakness, u say it signifies Man .

But pls make it clear, YOU SAID JESUS STILL HAVE THE NATURE OF MAN IN HEAVEN , whats the meaning of this ?

1) are u sayin Jesus Christ is still prone to human weakness in heaven ?

2) or are u sayin Jesus still have a body of human, which means Jesus still have KIDNEY, BLOOD, LIVER, PANCREAS, TONGUE , INTESTINE e. T. C

Pls be clear

Jesus Christ now possesses a resurrection body.
See 1 Corinthians 15:42-49.
That body is not subject to issues that plague the earthly body.

One fact is clear: all men are sinners, and also all men die. 

What takes care of the sin issue and where the one who dies spends eternity becomes the next focus. 

In Christ Jesus the sin issue is resolved; he died to pay the penalty for sin. By his resurrection (because he lives) anyone who anchors his hope on him can be assured of eternity with God. 
All it takes is believe on Jesus Christ as the Saviour and salvation is guaranteed. 

No other way or system provides such assurance - None! 

The book of James has been a difficult one for Bible scholars which includes all believers who have taken time to study it. Skimming through it will therefore not bring out its gem. 

Many over the centuries have fought over apparent (but not real) contradictions between James and Paul. However a careful study shows that James' epistle, written before Paul wrote his own, is in harmony with Paul's. There are no contradictions in God's word when properly understood. God is not the author of confusion. 

For example, when James talks of faith being 'useless' it is similar to Paul's reference to being "NOTHING" if he has faith to do the miraculous but does not demonstrate agape love - " if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:2). He is nothing or useless does not amount to being unsaved or an inanimate object. The emphasis is on the need for practical application of what is known of God to everyday living. 

James' emphasis on practical demonstration of the Christian life is unmistakable throughout his epistle
- " If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" - or in other words, 'of what USE is that' (James 2:16). Earlier in chapter one he had talked on the issue of not being 'hearer alone' but 'doer' as well. He gave example of what he stated as "Pure and undefiled religion (i.e. Spiritual life) as practical demonstration - James 1:27. He pointed out other areas that needed practical application of God's word. 

He talked about cheating, defrauding and withholding the poor man's wage and other issues requiring the practical living out of the spiritual life the Christian possesses. 

To have a better understanding of the book of James then, first the thrust of the entire book needs to be borne in mind and secondly the interpretation of a word or phrase may more often than not require a consideration of the entire chapter where that word occurred. 

Failing to see the link between the five chapters of the book of James and its dominating imperative of learning and applying biblical truth is to misinterpret James. 

johnw74:
I see, devoting themselves to deceitful spirits doesn't refer to them departing from faith in Jesus.



Our common salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ,
not by our bibical knowledge.

 

All the saved are foreknown by God,
He considers them righteous when they first come to faith in Christ,
and He then justifies their faith, as in Abraham.
Faith without works is dead.

A person is justified for salvation at the point he expresses faith alone in Christ alone - Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Notice this verse says 'justified by FAITH'.

The justification by works James talks about must therefore be different from justification by faith of the above verse. God does not wait for us to express works before he declares us justified.

Again, James' emphasis is on not just being 'hearers' but but on being 'doers' as well ( i.e. Those who apply what they hear or know).

Knowing the word of God and not applying it is useless ( of no benefit) - "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?" (James 2:20). Notice that the word used here is 'useless' and in other places 'dead'.

Always, the basis of man's acceptance before God is NEVER man's works BUT the finished work of Jesus Christ alone.

[size=5pt]

johnw74:
Jas 2:17 EvenG2532 soG3779 faith,G4102 ifG1437 it hathG2192 notG3361 works,G2041 isG2076 dead,G3498 being alone.G2596 G1438

faith
G4102

πίστις
pistis
pis'-tis
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.
Total KJV occurrences: 244

[/size]

First, like you've stated the Greek word 'Pistis' has multiple meanings. Just like the English word 'lead' can mean "to guide" / "to direct" or also "a heavy metallic element". 
We need then to pay attention to words and their context. We need to understand the 'faith' James is referring to in any portion of his epistle. 

To clarify from two other epistle writers - Paul & Jude: 
In 1 Timothy 4:1when Paul writes "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons," the 'departing from the faith' here refers to abandoning sound biblical truth in exchange for falsehood. Not reference to 'faith' as in 'trust'. 
In Jude 1:3 where he writes "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." the 'faith' we are to contend for is biblical truth not 'faith' as in 'trust'. 

James also used the word 'faith' in some instances to mean 'biblical truth' as well as in other cases to mean 'trust/confidence'(e.g. James 2:1). 

So the context matters, and in saying this we need to 'see' in the entire book of James what the superstructure is all about. Failing to do this is to misinterpret James. 

The issue therefore is first to CLEARLY understand James, then application will become easier. Picking one verse here and there without reference to James' CORE message will only blur understanding of his entire thrust. 

James' whole epistle is about biblical truth and it's application! Look at James 1:21-22, 2:1-26, 3:13ff, 4:17, 5:19-20. 

That is why his reference to Abraham is key because he (Abraham) was already saved before the incident James cited. Therefore the 'justification' for Abraham that James refers to cannot be justification for salvation but that of justification by works for REWARD. 

James is charging believers to apply what they know of God's Word in their day to day Christian living so as not to live unproductive Christian lives.

[size=5pt]

johnw74:
Faith in Jesus Christ is belief in Jesus Christ,
if we add good works (like becoming a better person) to that faith - belief,
then we have a living faith.

And God brings us to those good works, unless we wan't to remain the same.

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

[/size]
James' emphasis is not salvation. 
The word 'faith' in James 2:17 (cf. 2:14) is not as in that of trust in Christ for salvation. 
The Greek word for 'faith' does not always mean "trust". It also refers to biblical truth i.e. the information conveyed by God's Word. 

James' emphasis is on "the word implanted" (James 1:21) and "doers of the word" (James 1:22). 
He wants his Christian audience to whom he writes to: "....... be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." v. 22

This is his thought in these two chapters and elsewhere. Doers and not hearers alone. In other words, don't just know the Word of God, put it into practical expressions. 

Abraham was not 'SAVED' when he offered up Isaac on the altar. He was already saved and declared 'righteous' LONG BEFORE Isaac's birth (Genesis 15:6, cf. Romans 4:9-10). It was even before he (Abraham) was circumcised!

So Abraham was already saved before James' reference to this incident involving Isaac. Therefore the 'justification' for Abraham that James refers to is not justification for salvation but that of justification by works for REWARD. 

James' focus then is on experiential justification by works for reward. He is exhorting believers to apply what they know of God's Word in their day to day Christian living so as not to live unproductive Christian lives. 

VLadipo:
Thanks for the comment.
You made sense.

When James made the statement 'Faith without work is dead' what he simply said is:
Faith (i.e. Biblical truth, the body of what is believed, creed) if it is not put into application(works) is barren (produces nothing, shows no results - dead).

The 'faith' James is talking about when he talks about faith without works being dead is not 'faith' as that of 'trust' in Christ for salvation.

James in his epistle is simply saying then that a Christian who knows scriptures but refuses to put it into practice or apply it, will be unfruitful and also putting himself up for God's discipline which could terminate his life in death.

Again a clear understanding of James 2:17 - "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. " - is this:
'Faith (i.e. Biblical truth that a person knows or creed/spiritual principles that a person knows), if it has no works (i.e. If it is not applied: Not put into practice), is dead (i.e. Produces no results, remains stagnant, is useless), being by itself'

Therefore a Christian who does not apply what he knows from scriptures to his day to day life lives an unproductive spiritual life.

[size=5pt]

robosky02:
Myles Munroe once said “when purpose is not known abuse is inevitable”
The issue of whether to give or not to give is NEVER a force. But when you have a deeper understanding of what to do nobody will deceive you.

2 Timothy 3 New International Version (NIV)
3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.




The question I intend to ask and give answer to is:
Why do people tithe to the church?
The reasons are many. As I considered my own motivation, I discovered at least ten reasons why I give ten percent of my income to the church. A study of these reasons will help us to understand the great blessing of tithing and the biblical responsibility to tithe.

1. To Honor the Creator.
"Render… unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).
Acquisitiveness is one of the basic drives of mankind. Children grasp their toys and cry, "Mine!" Someone has noted three attitudes in the parable of the good Samaritan. The priest and the Levite had the attitude, "What's mine is mine and I'm going to keep it!" The thieves had the attitude "What's yours is mine, and I'm going to get it!" The Samaritan had the attitude, 'What's mine is yours, and you can have it." There is another attitude that should permeate our thinking, even above the commendable attitude of the Samaritan. That is, "Everything we have belongs to God, and we are stewards of His goods'"
God owns the entire world and its substance. "The earth is the LORD"S, and the fulness thereof" (Psalm 24:1). "Behold, all souls are mine" (Ezekiel 18:4). "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine" (Haggai2:. It is God who gives people the power to obtain wealth (Psalm 75:6-7; Ecclesiastes 5:19). We are not to glory in what God has given us, but to glory in Him (Jeremiah 9:23-24).
Why should I be grudge God ten percent when everything actually belongs to Him? If it were not for Him, there would be no land, no seed, no strength, no income, and no life. How generous He is to tell us, ""the tithe... is the LORD'S"! (Leviticus 27:30).

2. To Acknowledge My Heritage.
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29).
Abraham was the first tithe payer of record(Genesis 14:20). Abraham's grandson, Jacob, paid tithes (Genesis 28:22). Scripture says that Levi, Abraham's descendant and the father of the tribe from which the priesthood came, paid tithes in Abraham (Hebrews 7:9). My heritage of paying a tithe precedes the law of Moses. As a child of Abraham and an heir of the promise of Abraham. I acknowledge my family relationship by paying tithes.
Jesus said to the Jews, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham" (John 8:39). It would be strange to claim to be a child of Abraham and yet to neglect one of Abraham's most fundamental and noteworthy acts. I pay my tithes as a spiritual descendant of Abraham, the father of the faithful.

3. To Fulfill the Covenant.
"For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious" (II Corinthians 3:11).
In every comparison of the law of Moses and the new covenant that came by Jesus Christ, the new covenant stands supreme. The characteristic word in the Book of Hebrews is better, and everything is better about the new covenant. If the law demanded tithes, then how much more should we who are under the "perfect law of liberty" give our tithes willingly. (See James 1:25). If the law is written in the fleshly tables of our hearts and we follow God's commands not from outward rules but because of our new nature, then how quickly and how easily we should give the tenth that belongs to the Lord" (See II Corinthians 3:3-6).
Some people say, "Oh, we do not pay tithes, because tithing was under the law." If that is a sufficient reason for not paying tithes, then we could also mistreat our parents, for the law said, Honour thy father and thy mother" (Exodus 20:12). In actuality, we honor our father and mother and we give our tithes because the principles of the law are written in our hearts by the Spirit of God. We give willingly and liberally because the Spirit motivates us to give what God has said is His.

4. To Show My Love.
"Many waters cannot quench love" (Song of Solomon 8:7).
Love is the strongest motivation in the world. I have seen bumper stickers that say, "If you love Jesus, honk your horn!" Anyone can honk his horn. But David said, "Neither will I offer…unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing" (II Samuel 24:24). Someone should print a sticker that says, "If you love Jesus, pay your tithes!"
For someone who genuinely loves the Lord, the tithe is only the beginning of his giving. He gives not only his tithe, but also offerings (plural), not grudgingly and not of necessity, but cheerfully with love. as a matter of fact some even give more than just ten percent.

5. To Fulfill an Obligation.
"Ye pay tithe…:these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matthew 23:23).
Jesus did not criticize the Pharisees for paying tithes. He commended them. He said it was something they "ought" to have done. The word ought expresses an obligation or duty. It is one of the strongest words in the English language. To pay tithes is something every Christian ought to do.
The word ought has three meanings: (a) obligation or duty; as in, "He ought to pay his debts", (b) desirability; as in, "You ought to eat more slowly", (c) expectancy or probability; as in, "I ought to be through by Monday." Each one of these meanings puts an obligation upon the Christian. It is desirable for him to pay his tithes, he is expected to pay his tithes, and he has a duty to pay his tithes.

6. To Escape Condemnation.
"Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me… in tithes and offerings" (Malachi 3:.
How sad it is that people who are honest in business and who pay their debts to the bank, the store, and the government will not pay God what belongs to Him! Sometimes people quibble about whether they are "paying" or "giving" tithes, but both terms seem appropriate. The tithe is the Lord's and He expects us to pay it to Him; at the same time, He does not receive it until we give it to Him. He does not give us the authority to use His tithes for other purposes, but we have the power to spend it as long as it is in our hands. Nevertheless, a person is condemned if he spends God's money.

7. To Spread the Gospel.
"So hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (I Corinthians 9:14).
God has ordained for people to be saved by the preaching of the gospel (I Corinthians 1:21). "How shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14).
Tithing is God's way of supporting the ministry. In the Old Testament, the Levites and the priest were God's minister to the nation of Israel, and they were supported by tithes. In the New Testament, God has called people to minister the gospel. These ministers can be more effective if they do not have to provide for their livelihood by working on a secular job but can devote themselves full time to the work of God. They need time to give themselves to prayer and to the ministry of the Word.
It is not wrong for a man to labor with his hands, nor should a minister feel too good to engage in honest labor. Yet God's plan is for those who preach the gospel to live of the gospel. When God inspired Moses to write that the people should not put a muzzle on the box that labored, God was not as concerned with the ox as He was with the principle that a laborer should receive his livelihood from his work. The application of this principle is that the minister of the gospel should earn his living from his ministry. (See I Corinthians 9:9-14).
Some ministers have endured financial hardships and deprivation in order to proclaim the gospel in needy areas. If the tithing income insures that the minister can live in a good house, drive a good car, and buy sufficient clothes for his family, why should I begrudge providing these things to a man who would preach the gospel even if he had to work on a secular job to do it? It is a disgrace to a church if the pastor has to take a secular job to supply his family's needs when there should be sufficient tithing income available to allow him to do God's work on a full-time basis. My tithing can help to spread the gospel.
Yes I admit that some could have misunderstand Gods purpose on this does not mean you shouldn’t do your part.

8. To Avoid a Curse.
"Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me" (Malachi 3:9).
Someone has said, "You can't outgive God, and you can't outsqueeze Him either."
Some people put their money into "a big with holes" (Haggai 1:6). They do not give God His tithe, bit they eventually spend the money for automobile repairs, medical bills, and a thousand other things that they might have avoided if they had been faithful to God in their giving.
God said that the whole nation of Israel was cursed because they had not given God His due. God asked Israel to dedicate the gold of Jericho to Him, but Achan took a wedge of gold and hid it in a tent. It became a curse to him and his whole family.
I do not want God to curse my blessings. I want to give Him His tithe.

9. To Enjoy God's Blessing.
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse… and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it " (Malachi 3:10). (See also Luke 6:38).
God blesses the people who pay tithes. They do not always have the most money or the best clothes, but they are blessed.
However, I am wary of those who promise, "If you give God a dollar, He will give you back four." The expectation of a return should not be our motivation for giving. And His richest blessings are not necessarily monetary.
But I do want God to notice me and remember me. He noticed that the window put money into the treasury at the Temple. He noticed what Cornelius was giving. He noticed what Israel was not giving. He knows what we give and He notices when we give.
God has asked us to prove Him and see if He will not give us His blessings. I have trusted Him, tested Him, and tried Him, and I have concluded that it is better to give God what belongs to Him.

10. To Be Consistent.
"Be thou an example of the believers" (I Timothy 4:12).
For most of my ministry. I have lived on tithing income. How could I receive tithes and not pay tithes? I could not do so and be consistent. The Levites, who received tithes, also paid tithes on what they received (Nehemiah 10:38). Preachers who receive tithes should be most faithful to pay them.
Paying tithes will not save a person-everyone must be born again to be saved. But paying tithes will reap a blessing. Genuine Christian not only pay tithes, but they willingly pay tithes.

Finally your giving makes no sense except you first give your life to Christ. Then you can.to stand and argue why you should not also makes no sense. It’s a simply choice

Imagine buying bread for a little kid and asking him to cut a bite for you and he vehemently refuse that the bread is his own. As a parent what will be your impression of the child.

If God is the one that gave you breath, you didn’t pay for oxygen, gave you brain to be educated and helped you in the mist of multitude of unemployed graduate you had a job. If you are wise giving tithe (ten percent) which is even the minimum you can give. Will not be a problem for you.

so some are hinding under the guise of not willing to give to discaurage others from giving be wise
2 Timothy 3 New International Version (NIV)
3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

[/size]

The Christian needs to live his spiritual in line with God's prescription. 

Not to do that is to be like the Pharisees who set aside God's laws and instituted their own laws and relished in the position that they fulfilled  the laws they created and so expected God to approve of them. 

God only stands by what he has said. Remember the case of Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6. He wanted to do what he felt was right. But he was acting directly against God's prescription. And God showed his displeasure. 
Remember Ananias and Sapphira. They gave money - a perfectly legitimate thing to do - but with a wrong motive. And God again showed his displeasure. 

So it is not just enough to claim to be doing a thing "for God". It is not enough to come up with a hundred 'legitimate' reasons to do so. 
The issue for the Christian ultimately is: what is God's will concerning this? And in the case of giving: how has God commanded me to worship him with my giving under the NEW COVENANT?
Anything else will be wood, hay and straw at the evaluation throne of Christ; no matter how 'right', 'rational' or legitimate it may seem to the one doing it now.