₦airaland Forum

Eurphoria:
why you cracking up?

Sister Euphoria, if you are as pretty as you are funny, show me the queue, I'm joining it!

Eurphoria:
trini can i ask if all you are saying are based on some religious belief?

I beg O, help me ask am!

That right there is beyond sarcasm. I'm cracking up! And I thought I was funny ! lol

Hi Sis' TG,

Hope this finds you well.

trini_girl:
hmmm  I'm not surprised ,  everyone else has digressed and speculated about my lifestyle so why not you 

Nothing to do with your life style my sister, just questioning your study/information gathering methods  . But enough coarse jesting. Such (along with lewd speaking, and foul language) is unbecoming of saints. I both repent and apologise.

trini_girl:
How about you show new covenant evidence to back up that opinion first.

How can I evidence something that I claim is not there? Surely the onus is on you to show me it is?

trini_girl:
Please clarify.  If you think that, you have not been reading my posts.

Yes I have;

trini_girl:
There is no evidence that pre-marital sex with one partner, by consenting adults, in a committed monogamous relationship, over an extended period of time, is fornication.  It is not illicit, it is not illegal, it is not immoral. IT IS NOT FORNICATION and IT IS NOT A SIN

You said that! Clearly stating one partner, consent and monogamy as the imperatives. Sounds like a gay-homosexual charter to me. It certainly ain't Bible girl.

trini_girl:
Who do you think you're bossing around.  Try another one.  

To beseech,is not to boss my sister, it's to beg. But then it quite clear that words aren't your strong point.

All for Him.

God bless

trini_girl:
Let me expand my definition a bit at the risk of appearing to contradict myself, since I am also learning more about fornication.

Hmmm. Some sort of empirical study presumably  !
(I do apologise sister trini-girl, but you walked right into that one! lol!

trini_girl:
There is no evidence that pre-marital sex with one partner, by consenting adults, in a committed monogamous relationship, over an extended period of time, is fornication.  It is not illicit, it is not illegal, it is not immoral. IT IS NOT FORNICATION and IT IS NOT A SIN

But on a more serious note, your argument breaks down right here. Not least because the Bible does not attest to or outline any relationship commitment that allows sexual intimacy outside marriage. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

Further if your quote above is Biblically accurate, it equally serves to legitimises gay-homosexual relationships. Think about that. Then again, maybe you have?

By the sure mercies of God sister trini_girl, I beseech you desist. Now!!

With love

God bless

shahan:
@TV01,

Lol. . . I was only offering help, and my persuasions are borne out of having carefully studied that verse in Heb. 9:27. The one thing that came across to me is that you were beginning to sound argumentative without offering an alternative opinion if you were not satisfied with my inputs. Let me assure you: I'm not the writer of the Bible, and to keep questioning the rendition of the verse is simply to question the Word of God. What you read in my lines are my persuasions of the verse in its contexts.

Perhaps you should give it a careful study and offer us your views: you might do well to add to our understanding, rather than long drawn-out debates on just one point.

That said, I think if you take a look again at the verse, it does not drive just one point hinged on the word "once". Verse 27 is illustrative of verse 28: both are connected, and to just hinge this discussion on that one word is counter-productive. However, if your concern is basically about that one word, your will get help by understanding how David himself said in I Kings 2:2 - "I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man."

Might I say that "the way of all the earth" does not conflict with what I sahred earlier, for the patriarch was stating the same truth as that physical death is the common experience of men. Some men may experience death more than once; but Heb. 9:27 is not saying that men can experience death only once! neither does it say that judgement takes place immediately upon death.

Cheers.

Thanks shahan, you are absolutely right, in answering out of your persuasions, and I particularly appreciate your forthrightness and willingness to hear a contrary position (and rightly invite me to enunciate it rather than circling).

First let me digress a little. I took a 2 month posting hiatus from this forum (and I only really post to the thread on religion), although I read pretty much everything posted. One of the things I ruminated on was how much benefit I derived from posting and what was my attitude (and also that of others) when posting.

I really feel we could all be so much more edified if we pooled our experience, walks & understanding. I'll stop here as I have to dash now, but I shall return with an alternative understanding of this verse. I intend to be no later than tomorrow night and possibly earlier.

Back soon.

God bless

lafile:
yes, i believe he/she can.

1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. [b]A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.[KJV][/b]
I believe when Paul says a brother or sister is not under bondage when his/her unbelieveing partner leaves it indicates that if a believing partner decides to leave, then the other party IS under bondage in the sense that he/she CANNOT remarry.
I believe this passage was directed specifically to people who got married outside Christ. Why?
In verses 10 and 11 of 1corinthians, Paul gives the command concerning divorce.

7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
why then did he give another set of rules from verse 12? and who where "the rest" he was refering to at the beginning of verse 12?

7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away

Doesn't the scripture quoted suggest otherwise? In the event of a spouse leaving (even with due cause, i.e. adultery), he/she is to remain single.

If you say there is an exception for those married outside Christ (and for those who repudiate the faith maybe?). That is still just the one exception, which I have had cause to ponder.

In a marriage between a couple outside Christ which ends in divorce. Both parties move on and re-marry. Then one or both of the seperated and remarried couple comes to Christ? Do they term their current relationships adulterous? due to the previous marriage?

It's indeed very tricky. Lets say after coming to Christ the new spouse leaves? Then what? Singledom? re-marriage?

Making hard and fast rules can make one seem legalistic. Trying not to make hard and fast rules can open up all sorts of "reasoning" to justify actions which may be contrary.

What do people think?

God bless

Back again,

shahan:
2. The rendering of Heb. 9:27 is not wrong, as is given in most translations and versions:

I never said it was categorically wrong, I said it was possibly rendered wrong or the interpretation is incorrect. That is, if it's not incorrectly rendered. could this verse be better or differently expounded. You appear to be certain that both the rendering and interpretation are correct, right?

shahan:
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

The appointment to die is once and after this the judgement. It could have said finally permanently ultimately or even severally. It does not, it say's once. A one time occurence. And it's emphatic in stating the occurence/event as once.

shahan:
3. The fact that people have been raised from the dead does not conflict with the verse above. It rather points out the following: (a) it is the common lot of (appointed unto) men to experience death at least once; (b) judgement does not take place immediately upon death: rather, "after this" - after the common lot of men has run its course - at the end of it all, then the judgement takes place.

I find this explanation a bit of a stretch. Are you emphatically saying that is the best interpretation of this verse? Or that no other is plausible/possible? King David said, "I go the way of all the earth". Death is fully expounded on in the Scripture, both OT & NT. Why the need to emphasise the "once" in this verse, which bringss into question other verses and accounts of Biblical events?

shahan:
(a) the common lot of men to experience death at least once:
This does not stretch the idea that all men must die at least once; for in I Cor. 15:51-52 we are given the mystery that some will be alive and not have experienced death when the Lord Jesus Christ returns. The construct of Heb. 9:27 is a general sense of what is common to all men; and that at the last, when all things would have run their course, then the judgement takes place.

I am not infering that it says all men must die at least once, it doesn't say that. Scripture plainly teaches that there will be some alive at His coming. What it clearly says is that it is appointed for men to die once. And how can it be common to all men, if not all die?

shahan:
(b) the judgement does not take place immediate upon death:
Notice that it is a specific judgement here referenced - "the judgement". Of course, we know that this occurs only at the end of the age when Jesus returns for expressly that purpose. We understand this from the fact that verse 27 illustrates verse 28; as if to say, "Just as men die once, so Christ died once" - to strengthen the fact that both the judgement of men (at the end of the age) and the sacrifice of Christ for salvation occur once without the hint of repetition.

True, Christ died the once, but some men died more than once, so again, again, this could be stretching it. Neither am I questioning the timing of the judgement, understanding it to be as it is rendered, sometime after death, and said death is appointed to take place once. There is nothing ambiguous about this verse. Or anything that suggests it requires added non-contextual comment.

So again, is everyone satisfied that both rendering and generally accepted interpretation are spot on? is there no suggestion that there may be an alternative or deeper interpretation of this verse in lieu of any change to it's rendering? Anybody?

Let's keep talking.

God bless

shahan:
@TV01,

Notice my phraseology: "One verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation is Heb. 9:27" - I didn't say that is the only verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation.

Now the text you might have been alluding to:

II Kings 13:21
"And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet."

First, this does not indicate reincarnation, as you well know; for reincarnation and rising from the dead are not the same thing. The former speaks of an idea that a dead person is re-birthed as a baby and assumes another personality. That is totally antithetical to a rising from the dead, where people never lose their identity.

The case of Hebrews 9:27 is a summing up of stated divine judgement that men will face when the Judge sits expressly for that purpose. It does not suppose that men who rise from the dead as in the afore-mentioned miracles, will not be judged; rather, it affirms that all will stand before God to give an accounting of their lives on earth - at that Day.

The strength os this is that a man being miraculously raised from the dead comes in his own personality and identity - not as in the case of reincarnation into someone else's personality. On that Day, we can be sure that John the Baptist will stand distinguished from Elijah the prophet; as well everyone else. No one will stand before God in that day with multiple identities of reincarnation.

Erudite post shahan, and thank you.

But I thought I clearly stated,  the question was not about re-incarnation. I am settled on that.

The question is the interpretation of Hebrews  Chapter 9 verse 27.
It clearly says "it is given unto men once to die". And almost universally interpreted to mean that the sequence is death then judgment.

But as I mentioned, there are numerous cases of people being revived (not re-incarnated), in the Bible. That says to me either the rendition is wrong or the generally accepted interpretation is incorrect.

Now back to my question;
If the verse simply means "it is given to men to die once and then judgement", as most interprete it, how do you explain Lazarus et al being raised from the dead?

Thanks

God bless

shahan:
One verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation is Heb. 9:27 >> "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." There's no coming back this side of existence, just as the rich man had requested but was denied his wish in Luke 16:27-31.

While I fully accept that Christianity does not teach re-incarnation in any form. I am not convinced that this is the verse that teaches that.

The almost universally accepted understanding of this verse leaves questions in my mind. And I guess now is as good a time as any to ask  .

In 2 Kings (ch 13 I think, sorry posting ad-hoc), a dead man fell into Elisha's tomb and was revived. Paul, Peter and the Lord Himself all raised people from the dead. Remember lazarus?

So pray tell somebody, if it is "apponted unto men once to die then judgement", do we have (at least) four people who died more than once? were/will be judged twice? Or are still walking the earth?

I believe the scriptures are perfect, innerrant, infallible and immutable. So could someone please help breach this gap in my understanding or provide an alternative explanation  .

Thanks & God bless

Analytical:
I'm not advocating feminism, neither am I saying women should not be submissive to their own husbands and defer to them in authority. The scripture is clear. But that is as far as authority goes. All women cannot submit to all men. I can't find any scripture that supports that. Rather, everyone, male and female, should submit to higher authority (Heb 13:17).

The logical extension of such thinking, is that a woman can be a submissive wife at home, but then take authority over her husband in church. Sorry, thats warped.

To avoid just that we now have the hypocritical wife as "co-pastor " arrangement. Whereby to avoid a woman taking authority over her own husband she is made a pastor. Over other men, but not over her own husband. Again, plain convoluted.

No, women do not submit to all men, only to their own husbands. In a church setting they submit to the male eldership like everyone else (including their husbands). The exception to this being if her husband (whatever his position in church) instructs otherwise. Eldership authority does not supercede spousal authority.

And mature adult men do not submit to any women, only the male eldership.

I have said it severally before, home first then church.

God bless

shahan:
3. "can he/she remarry?"
". . .In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved" (vs. 15).

Yes, but can she re-marry? Especially in light of Romans 7 & 1 Corinthians 7, which stipulate a lifetime bond until death do part.

Morning All,

Most of the more nuanced submissions have acknowledged that there are gender differences in roles, spheres of influence and areas of responsibility.

Can women prophesy, preach, teach or take authority?
The answer appears to be yes to all, but with exceptions.

Women are not permitted to take authority over mature Christian men in a full church setting. Over children, over adolescents and over other women, yes. But not in church in the presence of mature adult males men. To do so is to usurp authority and rebel against divine order.

Vast learning, eloquence, charisma, family background, or ability of any kind is not cause to rebel against divinely instituted order. Will all self-titled females whose position gives them (an unscriptural) authority over men please desist forthwith. You have been warned!!![/color][color=#990000]

Hi goodguy,

I still can't say I fully understand your position. I can't even say if we totally differ or if we are just talking perspective here. I've re-read the scriptures quoted. Let me ask this;

1. Are you saying marriage is lifelong whatever the issue?

2. That if a spouse divorces because of adultery, such a one has committed a sin for divorcing, but is not responsible for the adultery of the offending partner if they remarry, as adultery had already been perpetrated? This implies that divorce itself is a sin.

3. What then is the situation if adultery is committed, divorce ensues, but neither party remarries?

Would you also disagree with a rendering of Matthew 5:32 in two parts? Being

1.Divorce for any reason except sexual immorality is a causing the divorced party to commit adultery if they remarry.

2. Remarriage by a divorced spouse is adultry, because as I have mentioned (and bourne out by both Romans & Corinthians 7, remarriage apart from death is always adultery.

I am starting to appreciate your view. And I must say it's an interesting take.

God bless

bobby1:
please give me a break no church can force anyone to pay your first fruits and there is nothing wrong in paying your firstfruits. it all for your own benefit. in my church we don't force people to do things and a lot of u on this forum don't know how to talk

Sir, I would appreciate two things from you.

1. An exposition of the "firstfruits" doctrine as you know it/it is ppreached in your church.
2. The name of your church and pastor.

We are compiling a list  .

Lord have mercy.

shinystar:
The earlier we believe it, the better for us. It is real and I have met church members who admitted they have been told to do it. One minister even said pointedly on Tv that those who default are setting themselves up against God this year. What further evidences do you need?

I sugget you counsel the "church members" who had been told to do it the true counsel of God.
As for the minister who proclaimed it on TV, I think you should noise his name abroad, so that people can correct and/or ignore him.

We have a register of sex offenders here in the UK, maybe one for snake oil salesmen, hucksters and charlatans of the religious type would be a good idea? Truly it is written.

God bless

babyosisi:
so TV01 you are saying in essence that if a man errs and commits adultery,repents of it,his wife could refuse to forgive him and take him back on that grounds.
Let's be careful what we say,there is still a thing known as forgiveness.
We cannot pick and choose what suits us,a forgiving spirit should be in any true Christian.

TV01:
And finally, although I see adultery as the only reason for divorce, I don't say it has to lead to divorce. The crux is forgiveness. As God constantly forgave adulterous Israel and Christ is constantly sanctifying his Church/Bride, divorce (again except in an extreme inverterate case) reeks of unforgiveness. It's why the decision to divorce if taken, does not mean you can re-marry. What you are saying is either you are not willing to forgive and happy to live alone, or this persons infidelity is so unyielding that its better for you to live alone.

Hi Babyosisi, Happy new year. While I was on my Nairaland posting (but not reviewing) fast, I read about your nuptials, may I offer my belated congratulations and wish you and your spouse a delightful and fruitful union.

There was a little needle in our discourse last year, so while we are expounding on "forgiveness" I apologise for any offence on my part, and I am happy to let bygones be bygones.

I hope my repost above satisfactorily answers your query, as I trust you would not intentionally mis-quote me.

God bless.

Easyy:
All,

I was getting blessed by reading all the posts and the reactions of Orikinla and TV01 to each other until babyosisi entered with a rather instigational post and everything went pear shaped, then came in disguised or supressed unhappiness with each other.

At which point I left !

Hi TayoD,

I am aware of the “Eldership” tradition in early Jewish culture. It is referred to severally in both the new & old testaments. I think it’s pertinent to note that while a mainstay of the culture, it did not grow out of the religious command, but worked in conjunction with it. The lines are further blurred by the fact that Jewish religion, suffused most aspects of everyday life.

Now, as to the “Eldership” structure in the church, the essential requirements for it are laid out in 1&2 Timothy & Titus. Reading from Acts and most of the letters following, it becomes very clear that lead for most church based activity is by the eldership. The narrative clearly reveals that it was always the elders that where charged with teaching, shepherding etc, etc. This was spoken of by Paul, Peter & James, especially when referencing an already existing and fully functioning church.

In as much as one believes that all scripture is Holy Ghost breathed, yes I do believe it was a commandment of the Lord. The Church was established by the Lord and His holy apostles (Ephesians 2:20), so anything spelt out under apostolic authority is as good as if the LORD Himself had spokenit.

Whilst on the face of it, Church eldership may seem identical to Jewish cultural eldership, I don’t believe the intention was to replicate the tradition. Incorporating Jewish traditional elements into Christianity was always a problem and served to hinder (especially Jewish converts), from fully embracing new life in Christ. It was something Paul fought bitterly against and drives much of the narrative in both Galatians & Hebrews.

TayoD:
Just like the Deacons, Elders were appointed to meet the needs of a growing community of faith. The needs and peculiarities of the present day church will also necessitate the need for different style of government and administration. While the nomenclature may be different, the purpose essentially remain the same: meeting the needs of the body of Christ.

On the face of it, a plausible arguement. but one that doesn't align with scripture. Just as God told Moses to see to it that he made all things according to the pattern shown him (Hebrews 8:5), we have our blueprint for orderly family and church life. I see this as obvious attempt to introduce will-worship into proceedings. An open-ended remit such as you suggest means anyone can do anything and leaves the scripture subject to tradition. In my book (& in the Bible ), that's a no-no.

New balls please.

God bless

God bless

goodguy:
I assume you're referring to Okotie here.  TayoD should be able to clear this up.  He probably knows more about Okotie than the rest of us here.  His submission here actually shows they are divorced, but not due to any conflicts.  I take back the instance I cited earlier.

Hi goodguy, thanks for the link to TayoD's earlier submission. I wasn't actually a member back then so missed this one. Let me start by saying this, I really like TayoD. My prime impetus for establishing relationships is sensing a love of God. And while I may be wrong, I sense that in Bro' TayoD, and that's sufficient for me.

TayoD and I have been having this on/off discussion about church structure (I'm too technologically backward to append a link ). With all due respect, I feel the scripture shows TayoD's position here is seriously flawed and smacks of an attemt to shoehorn scripture into tradition. To render acceptable an unacceptable situation. It's not the first time I've seen TayoD, hold a position by proxy (i.e the MOG said) even if it's contrary to scripture. Let me explain.

A bishop is no different from a pastor, a shepherd or an elder. They are all different renderings of the same role. I have shown this from scripture severally and specifically in the thread "Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastors". Pertinent to note the mandate assumed by many a "pastor" in Nigerian churches is no where to be found in scripture and a man-made construct. If anyone feels otherwise, I only ask that they show it from scripture. I am more than happy to admit and repent of any error on my part.

The alluded to sacrifice of his marriage to serve His Lord is fleshly will-worship, falsely validated by a wanton warping of scripture. The God that hates divorce will not demand or use it as a means to glorify His name. My position holds, which is one I've mentioned severally. family first and then church. Can God not raise someone else up? Saul made a hash of it and God did not hesitate to move him on. Get over yourselves. Failure to hold your family together disqualifies you from pastoring (assuming a bishopric). Even if they had not divorced and agreed a permanent seperation, that would be to make a mockery of the spirit, essence and intent of marriage. I can honestly say I don't think I've seen a more blatant disregard of a biblical imperative. And the cack-handed attempt to pass it off as valiant sacrifice. Slap me silly with a salty piece of cod why don't you? Utter tosh!

TayoD, I must say I'm surprised. I've noticed your campaign against the other pastor Chris, and to be honest, I feel you have made valid points, but it seems that you are suffering from the same blind spot his followers are.

goodguy:
If the basis of your conclusion is on Matt 5:32, I'm afraid that text states otherwise.  Things we need to note first in order to understand that scripture itself are:

* God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), so it's logical to conclude that it is a sin.

* Adultery is a sin. (Exodus 20:14)

* Divorce based on the grounds of adultery makes one free of the two sins (the sin of divorce itself and the sin of making someone else commit adultery) that one would normally have been guilty of if the divorce was due to some other reasons.(Matthew 5:32)

From this, we can see that adultery is not a reason for divorce, at least, that's not what Jesus was saying.  But rather, if you divorce your spouse based on that ground, then you're free of the two sins listed above.

Hmmm. First of all, please re-read what you wrote above. Ae you saying adultery is not a reason for divorce, but if you do it on that basis you haven't sinned? I can't see the reasoning behind that. Could I ask you to clarify or illustrate please  .

I thnk we all know that a full reading of all related scripture (and the enduement of the Holy Spirit) is necessary to determine the Lords heart on a matter. So no my position is not based solely on Matthew 5:32. I would refer also to Matthew19:9 & Mark 10:11. Adultery is covenant breaking and the wronged party is within their rights to declare abrogation. For their many harlotries, God had every right to cast away Israel His firstborn and backsliding Judah. But longsuffering and divine love meant mercy triumphed over judgement.

My point is that sexual immorality is a reason for divorce, as it absolves you from sin if the offending party remarries. Said sin being on the offender and whoever marries them. I'm not sure that divorce per se is a sin, but if you divorce for any but the one reason and one/both of you re-marry, then one/both of you are committing adultery which is. And the fault for the adultery of the one divorced is place at the feet of the one who unsripturally divorces them.

So until someone can show otherwise, my position remains. Divorce is permissable only in the case of adultery, and remarriage only in the case of death. Not for battery, not for ministry and not for the myriad other reasons that have crept in. And I'm talking Christendom here.

Please don't think me hard hearted. I have divorce in my immediate family. I've seen it live and direct. The pain and aftershock seem unrelenting and there are no winners. Marriage and divorce have a way of exposing people. Showing if they say they do, but really don't. If they say they are but truly aren't. Is there anything God can't do?

I'm here.

God bless

Abusive relationships, mmmmmm that's a hard one.

A lot of people pull this one out of the bag to somehow justify divorce. That's not to say that in many cases it's not a real issue.

First off, I would say that marriages based on the proper foundation (Christ and maturity in Him) should rarely have this problem.

Where it does arise, I would counsel seperation and all the usual Christian help. This is assuming the couple are practising Christians.

I'm against secular courts being involved, as there imperatives are often at odds with Christian mores. Let's leave the courts to deal with non-Christian marriages. For the most part non-believers have a completely different concept of marriage anyway.

Assault/Battery or abuse of any kind is not adultery, which I believe is the only possible reason for divorce. There's mercy, forgiveness and grace to help. That should be the starting point.

I am not in the habit of picking on individuals, so i won't. But could someone please explain to me why a man would be permanently seperated from his wife (i.e not circumstancially enforced or only temporarily) if there is not a problem of some sort?

And finally, although I see adultery as the only reason for divorce, I don't say it has to lead to divorce. The crux is forgiveness. As God constantly forgave adulterous Israel and Christ is constantly sanctifying his Church/Bride, divorce (again except in an extreme inverterate case) reeks of unforgiveness. It's why the decision to divorce if taken, does not mean you can re-marry. What you are saying is either you are not willing to forgive and happy to live alone, or this persons infidelity is so unyielding that its better for you to live alone.

Thoughts please brethren.

God bless

trini_girl:
I'm still not sure if I agree with your stance on women and teaching. But the seperation of roles vs equality in creation and salvation is definitely refreshing.

Thanks

Sister trini_girl,

That is the whole point. God has specific areas of influence, roles and responsibility in mind to maximise the complimentary nature of the two genders.

A creational point is that men should talk a position of leadership and wield the authority and responsibility that comes with it. That is not to say that women are less capable, talented or gifted, it's merely adhering to divine order.

All things being equal, in a full church setting, women are not to take on the teaching role or assume authority over men. The scriptural narrative is very clear. Starting from the home (Gods basic building block, not the church as many presume), to the church which is essentially a supersized family.

So for example. You have ten families. Each headed by a husband, with a wife in dutiful (and biblical) submission, and say a couple of kids. When they come together as a church, does it make sense to now give authority to a women over the men? No, it is inconsistent. it's why women cannot be elders. It's as clear as spring water. Yes, there are important roles for women. It's sad that people think that mothering and nurturing the future, are somehow lesser roles than teaching the word or assuming a titular office.

Women for the most part (confirmed scientifically and anecdotally) have better language/speech skills than men, that is not a reason for usurping God's divine order. It's important that we learn to obey and appreciate scriptural dynamics in relationships. So for example the marriage order shouldn't change if the woman is better paid, better connected, has a better pedigree, is famous etc etc.

I'll stop now 'because I know you detest lengthy posts, but i hope we are moving towards shared understanding!

God bless

lysaa:
i didnt say better mind u, i said on the same level. And i know that for sure, there are things a christian that prays in tongue can do that the other can't, its an obvious fact. take 2 christians out to pray for a sick person , observe their boldnessand convictions, i tell u by the time the one that can pray in tongues finishes rattling in tongues, he becomes high and speaks authoritatively. The spirit makes the difference . i'll say again, i didn't say tongue speaking christians are better than the ones that can't speak based on the ground that "to whom much is given much is expected". u can't say a 200L student is better than a 100L student but they can be assessed by what they have learnt. but the 100L one needs to progress into 200L. thats my point, we need to grow and not practise churchianity but real rugged and raw christianity.

My sister, I'm still not sure we are agreed. Are you saying that tongue speaking is an indicator of "level?". So all other things being equal, tongue speaking is some sort of tie-breaker?

Those at Corinth "came behind" in no gift" but as Christians go they were "yet carnal". The Christian walk is about maturity, devotion and a gaze focused upward where Christ is sat at the right hand of God.

As Christians we can of ourselves do nothing. Whatever we have, we have recieved, so we should not boast as if we did not. This kind of thinking is the very thing that engenders a spiritual caste system and veneration of men.

God bless

Because its a sign of the times as prophesied in the Bible. Nigeria is just a case in question. End times, end game. And those who know their God_______

Because religion is a massive con and generates hyper-profits for the hucksters & charlatans behind it.

Because it at once fills a void and serves as a vehicle for their hope (lessness?). Without hope the spirit of many in Nigeria would be crushed by the sheer grind and privation of day to day life.

Hi sister trini what's goin on ?

You work all day and post all night! Hopefully that keeps you outta trouble  .

Are you still insistent that pre-marital sex is not sinful in the sight of God?

God bless & keep you

lysaa:
A christian that speaks in tongues is never on the same level with the one that doesnt. carry out a survey, i dare u

I won't take you up on your dare to carry out a survey, but I will say this, a Christian that speaks in tongues is in no way better than one who does not. If we can be agreed on one thing, it is this, speaking in tongues (known or unknown) is a gift and the Holy Spirit distributes gifts severally as He wills.

There is no call for smugness or discrimination due to gift differentiation amongst believers. It's the cause of a lot of angst amongst brethren.

No shakin' for real

God bless

Hmmm, some interesting posts so far.

I'll start by stating my position, thereby subjecting it to scrutiny.

The only biblical reason for divorce is adultery.
The only biblical reason for remarriage is death.

God bless

Analytical:
True, 1 Tim 2 11-12 can be extended to other areas but it's primarily talking about a woman and a man in the sense of a wife's submission to her husband, hence the Adam and Eve example and reference to child-bearing.

Or another way of looking at it, could be that it talking about the relationship order between male & female, with the reference to Adam & Eve being made to stress that said order was instituted at creation?

God bless

shahan:
@TV01,

Thank you so very much for that input. I wouldn't want to sound accusative or pedantically persecutive. And God bless you for levelling the platform - you will not lose your reward, in Jesus Name!

Thank you & amen to that. Kind words indeed.

May the Lord lead & direct all who seek Him in truth and have mercy on those who do not!

There is error in all denominations (and outright heresy in some!). Show me any denominations structure and doctrine and I’ll show you error to some degree.

If per chance there is a denomination that perfectly (or even close too perfectly) adheres to biblical truths, one of the first things they would acknowledge is that they are not the authors, arbiters or sole possessors of that truth. Elijah made the same mistake, thinking it was just him left. Like I said, God knows and preserves those who truly seek Him.

Trying to pursue one’s faith (or defends one’s position) based on strict adherence to man-made tradition will always (if one is honest) lead to a point where some precepts just don’t fit. For such a one, scriptural interpretation is always (at least in part) through the eyes of those they associate with, whether they realize/acknowledge it or not. Some doctrine although erroneous will have to be tightly held on too, or things will come unstuck (at least in part, if not totally).

A sermon I have never heard preached is the example of Paul (Saul). The narrative contained in his epistles clearly charts his transition from a zealous champion of man-made tradition to unadulterated faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s why he told Timothy “His life was meant as pattern/example” to believers after Him.

In Galatians he recounts how legalistic and zealous he was. By Philippians, he has come to the understanding that all his achievements, zeal, background and pedigree were as dung and need to be utterly discarded to lay hold on true faith in Christ.

Most of us are “born-again” into one sect/denomination or the other. We are zealous for God, eager to learn and willing to please. We learn the precepts, the traditions and swallow wholesale the words of the Apostle, or Prophet. But the key is to focus firmly on the Author and Perfecter of your faith, if indeed He is. You have to keep asking, I know what the MOG says, but what are You saying Lord. Keep asking Like Paul did, “Who are you Lord?” and “What would you have me do?”

Otherwise you will become bound by tradition, trapped in a man-made carnal construct and ultimately end up a well-schooled religionist. I can personally testify that deliverance from that state to true liberty in Christ takes Gods grace, and is an epiphany akin to the rebirth experience.

The saved are always first and foremost individuals. They can be in any denomination. But if one is truly seeking God, loving the Lord and keeping His commandments, God will draw him to Himself, and in due course bring such a one out of “Babylon”. The Lords ways and thoughts are not ours. He knows the best time for individuals to make that transition. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

Yes, Spiritual Babylon is real, but I am not yet certain it is fully manifested. In these days, heresy is hard at work and apostasy is right on its heels. I personally believe that at it’s zenith, Babylon will comprise of a whole system of united denominations and sects (ecumenism), and possibly even religions (syncretism). And the religious aspect may well be joined be others (being the political and economic). But that’s another thread.

Interestingly enough, we are able to discuss these things at present, because for the most part we have liberty to choose Whom and how we worship. It may not always be thus. There is not as yet a universally mandated way to worship God. I suspect such a time will come, and those against or outside the system (Babylon), will understand the true meaning of the words “whoever kills you will think that he offers God service”.

Lets share openly and with hearts unprejudiced by denominational bias while we yet can.

God bless.

trini_girl:
TV ,  why do you always have to allude to me  nowww.

I don't believ I was, I said "sisters" plural. But even if I was, doubtless you are loving the attention  .

trini_girl:
So far according to your description of me, I am a belligerent, bellicose, aggressive, passionate, masculine  woman spewing for scatological teaching!

I don't think I've been unfair. Harsh maybe. But I'm sure there's a lot more to you than I've seen here. And I'm equally sure it's mostly good.

trini_girl:
You're a walking Thesaurus!  You must have scored full points on your SATs (if you're american that is)

Far from it. I speak just the one language fluently, so if I don't have a decent grasp of that, what would be my excuse? As for my being American, please Sister, my burdens are already heavy enough 

trini_girl:
But why, why are you so hard on me?    Just stop reading my posts that's all 

It's called tough love my sister. You know I have your best interests at heart .

Later.

God bless