₦airaland Forum

RodgersAkpafu:
@TV01

Just to clarify that my admiration for Shabana is rooted in her stand on issues and stating it without fear or favour

Has nothing to do with a "school boy crush"
Or "losing objectivity"
Just to point that our before you get things twisted

Relax yourself, that was just joshing, not a serious point. As noted, I care not for politics, political parties or individual politicians. I'll be back to josh you some more when she gets caught up in scandal.

RodgersAkpafu:
"and the derangement is as a result of"?
You tell me, since you are "all knowing" lol

You termed it "deranged men abusing naive girls". Please explain how male derangement leads to female abuse - extra points if you can be specific about the specific derangement and abuse in view.


TV

aswani:
Grooming that only happened within the past 20 years is 5 decades old.

Child sexual abuse itself s likely ages old - the UK gang rapes by largely muslim males has been traced back to as far as 5 decades. It may have been smaller scale at that time, but it has been evidenced.

aswani:
Also all those catholc reverend fathers, scout leaders, football coaches etc that were implicated in these kind of things, are they also Muslim?

Nope. Mentioned them and that in my initial post on this thread. But that is known as "whataboutery". Sex crimes should be called out and clearly labelled, whenever, wherever and by whomsoever.

https://www.nairaland.com/8309906/kemi-badenoch-demands-national-inquiry/6#133658885

aswani:
Were your popes and higher ups in the catholic church in the UK and US not going all out to protect their paedophile reverend fathers? Instead of disrobing them, they were reassinging them and those were just doing more harm.

Not my pope, but yes, as mentioned, they should be called out and held accountable. Justice must be served. Likewise for other cohorts.

aswani:
The point is grooming is not exclusive to any group.

That is not the argument.

aswani:
I nearly fainted the other day watching a program of a white UK woman whose uncle, fathers brother, not only raped her repeatedly since sge was 8, but was passing her on to his friends too.

And presumably you would like to see a no-holds barred investigation and justice?

aswani:
How about white men, like Gary glitter, that go to Asian countries to sleep with young children.

Cited in my first post. You do realise that all you are doing is being an apologist?

aswani:
What about the us musician, from a well known band, that was paying a woman, to allow him penetrare her one year old daughter. This happens in the last 5 to 10 years.

I recall that case - did anyone excuse or downplay it

aswani:
It isn't those dastardly Muslims, it's those dastardly men if all races who are inhuman and sick.

Only in this instance, it mostly was, and should be called out and investigated shouldn't it?


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
Saying motives for raising this case as mute is laughable
The straightforward solution to this is to bring legislation to Parliament that deals decisively with this issue.

Yes. the reason this was raised is at best of second-order consideration. The issue here is persecution for the crimes committed, ensuring justice is served and implementation of any corrective actions.

RodgersAkpafu:
Second, Saying Labour Party depends on the Muslim vote is even more funny
In the last year election, the Muslims abandoned the Labour Party because of their stand on the Gaza matter

UK minority populations typically vote Labour. This may be changing somewhat but 1n 2019, Muslims voted 80%+ for Labour. Figures for 2024 are around 63% (factcheck).

In the 20 constituencies where the muslim vote is 30%+, they have real leverage - especially given their ability to mobilise and the typically low turnout numbers. The prevailing muslim voices coalesced around the Gaza issue, with a number of muslim independents standing.

RodgersAkpafu:
They ran independent candidates (whom some won) , voted green Party in other instances and my girl Shabana Mahmoud (whom I really love) almost lost her seat

This voting along sectarian lines returned 4 muslim MPs and at least 2 whites who campaigned along similar lines. More pertinently, Jess Philips and Wes Streeting both had majorities in the hundreds and are on shaky ground. Jon Ashworth lost his seat. Most Labour MPs - even muslims - who had not been clear on the Gaza issue lost votes.

Perhaps objectivity would become you more if you rid yourself of your schoolboy crush on Shabana. And, as mentioned. her numbers suffered as she toed the part linme - understandable given she is quite high up and has been rewarded with the AG ministerial post.

RodgersAkpafu:
Labour still won decisively in 2024
So that "block vote " you r talking does not exist

Of course it does - it just went elsewhere to a degree this election. Labours victory was mostly due to the woeful 14-yearTory performance. Overall, this was way more important than the muslim vote. However, we have seen sectarian voting become a thing. Labour knows and has always acted with the knowledge that constituencies with high numbers of muslim voters are can quite easily swing against thew - this with an estimated UK population of 6%+ (although I would think it's higher).

RodgersAkpafu:
This is primarily a case of people who have a bone to pick with Muslims and using this as a guide to rage bait ppl.

This is a knee-jerk response. Whilst those who have a bone to pick with muslims exist, this case was the reverse. The authorities were hesitant to act due to pressure\fears of being labelled racist or islamophobic. This has been decades in the making.

RodgersAkpafu:
Let's see real legislation if they really care about safeguarding
When you hear them talk, you hear them emphasise in the "white British girls" part

The means to deal with this were always in place. It was a lack of political will\integrity that led to the failing, not a lack of legislation. I don't believe the horrors outlined in the transcripts (which along with the point made you conveniently ignored) were ever legal,

RodgersAkpafu:
Instead of deranged men abusing naive girls
You and I know why they do that
Don't even pretend

And the derangement is as a result of? Keep obfuscating, that is the reason why this situation is as it is.


TV

Thanks for your response.

None of this addresses the outworking of mutah and misyar as widely practiced in Islam today. Or the fact that they are both thinly-veiled means to sanctify illicit sex.

As stated, it informs my thinking that Islam has no objective morality, only the halal\haram notion'


TV

Explore2xmore:
Would you say the verse refers exclusively to males?

In classical Arabic, the masculine plural is used to refer to groups that may include men and women. This is a common grammatical feature in the language and does not mean gender identification unless this is clarified by context.


Saudi Arabia is the custodian of the two holy mosques in Makkah and Madinah, Saudi Arabia holds a vital position in supporting Hajj and Umrah while also safeguarding Islamic heritage. Nonetheless, the country's socio-political choices, modernization initiatives, and interpretations of Islamic law are shaped by its distinct historical and cultural background, rather than serving as a definitive representation of Islam.

There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white person over a black person, nor of a black person over a white person, except by taqwa (piety)." (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 23489)

Quran 49:13 O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted

The best of you are those who are best in character" (Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1162).

aswani:
First off, what do you mean by "not properly documented" ?

Many reports were ignored or not followed up. Often crimes were captured without complete detail.

aswani:
The grooming thing was in the news when it happened, first item, front page. Like the other poster said, every single person involved has seen jail time. I also believe all councils involved have had Official Inquiry's over it, bringing in external people to conduct them, and overhauled their processes.

Nope. It's been known about for something like 5 decades and only really came to national prominence around 2010. The inquiries were as much to "cover backs" as seek redress. No recommendations from the only national inquiry - 20 of them - have been implemented. Local inquires only have limited scope and powers.

aswani:
The girls were from a tough background, done akrwafu on drugs, they were then plied with money, drinks and drugs. A lot of their case workers were either sacked or resigned. Thames Valley Constabulary was also indicted as a case worker had reported it but wasn't taken seriously enough.

No official has been formally implicated, charged or jailed - let alone held to accont - for the institutional failings. Perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary.

aswani:
Which government will take over to expose anything? Is it the Tories that have been in power all this while, including when the issue cane out, that didn't do anything and are using this to try and garner votes? How many people in the Tory Party went to see the girls that were groomed.

Agree here. They are both as bad as each other. Equally corrupt and will always play politics first, with accountability and justice way down the list.

aswani:
Another grooming gang has been unearthed on Scotland, guess what, no Muslims, just Polish people. It's not a Muslim thing, it's a wicked human beings thing.

Yes, evil resides in all ethnicities, races, religions and institutions.

However, wherever you find Muslim minorities in the West (regardless of the major ethnicity of those Muslims), you find evidence of this type of crime. Even in India, "love-Jihad" is a thing. In Muslim majority countries it's forced conversion, forced marriage and sexual assault. Typically without consequence. Have Boko Haram returned our girls yet?


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
There is more nuance to this topic than you are seeing

Agreed - and much more than acknowledged in this post

RodgersAkpafu:
First, you are wrong about paragraph 2, the case was not treated with leniency. They are in prison, others were deported. Elon Musk and co are lying through their teeth
The Right wing is playing politics with a national tragedy. They don't care about those girls
They are just trying to rile voters up with racist bait

This is a generational, nationwide, scandal. And yes, some are playing politics as the Tories have been equally lax in prosecuting this, but it mostly happened under labour controlled councils. However it was raised, whoever raised it, and the motivation for it being raised are mostly mute points. It happened and should be addressed, end-of. Attempting to centre the discussion on these 3 points is obfuscating at best and essentially aiding and abetting the cover-up at worst.

RodgersAkpafu:
Most of those indicted in this shameful practice are already in jail, and let's be clear, the correct definition of what most of those men did was statutory rape and grooming I.e. luring girls with gifts to go sleep with them despite them being minors.

This has been going on for somewhere around 5 decades. Serious, although limited action only really started less than 2 decades ago.

The point about "indictments" is at best ignorant or outright dishonest. Firstly, many of the early perpetrators will have gotten off scot-free. Secondly, many instances were covered up or not progressed to prosecution. Meaning there have been only limited indictments of the perpetrators, And NONE of those complicit in covering up (authorities, enforcement, NGO's etc.), have been held accountable.

RodgersAkpafu:
They claimed the girls gave consent, but it is clear that the girls were manipulated, and were not old enough to understand the full ramifications of what they were doing
But they are making it appear like girls were kidnapped and violently gang raped in the house for political gains

Have you read any of the transcripts from the court cases? These girls were groomed, assaulted, drugged, raped, gang-raped, trafficked and in some cases murdered. More perversely, many victims and in some instances their parents were persecuted by the police!

RodgersAkpafu:
Sara Sharif was a victim of something similar
Because she is a brown girl, they don't care

Absolute crap. This story was headline and front-page for days. We saw the arrests, heard phone-call recordings between the family and police and saw clips of the extradition. The court proceedings were all closely followed on national TV.

And this case was in no ways similar. It was the murder of a child by her biological father, stepmother and uncle. Sent to school in the Hijab to mask evidence of the assaults and then withdrawn from school. Absolutely tragic, but categorically different, except for the religious and cultural background (not saying the authorities necessarily failed here and there was no mention of sexual assault, although one wonders).

RodgersAkpafu:
Gerrard59 there is political and racial undertone to this mess
And the tories had 14 years to do sth, now that a lefties took power less than 7 months ago, they have found their voice

Yes, there are political and racial undertones - and they are in some ways intertwined.

The labour party depend on the block Muslim vote for much of their electoral success and will do whatever it takes to hold onto this block. Hence the unwillingness to tackle this head-on.

The racial aspect was two-fold. Many were concerned about being labelled racist or islamophobic and as a result hesitated to act. There was also a keen awareness of keeping resultant community intentions in check.

Even worse, many of the crimes were aggravated by the religious and cultural prejudices of the perpetrators. Fact! The court transcripts clearly reveal this.


TV

...my apologies for the graphic nature of the attachments. I consider it right on balance as the cowardice, obfuscation, lies and smearing around this continue...

The verse below refutes most of your claims. Claiming "gender-neutrality" as posited, would actually suggests that same-sex marriage is a thing in Islam. Most mainstream Muslims would consider this heretical.

As for the point about "abolition of slavery in Islam", that is ahistorical at best. Saudi Arabia reluctantly ended slavery in the early 1960's forced by the British. Slavery is still extant in parts of the Muslim world. And please, spare me the the "society not religion" trope.

It's hard to see this response as anything more than an attempt to massage or whitewash the true meaning and intent contained within the Islamic scriptures. There is no true sense of classic vs. contemporary positions in Islam. Certainly not in it's mainstream beliefs and outworking.

Understand the desire to present the religion in the best light possible. I find most presentations of Islam are based on unfounded assertions and trumped up claims. The Koran, hadiths and narratives often contradict, with great effort spent to explain the differences.

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
١ قَدْ أَفْلَحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ1 Successful indeed are the believers
٢ الَّذِينَ هُمْ فِي صَلَاتِهِمْ خَاشِعُونَ2 Who are humble in their prayers,
٣ وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ عَنِ اللَّغْوِ مُعْرِضُونَ3 And who shun vain conversation,
٤ وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِلزَّكَاةِ فَاعِلُونَ4 And who are payers of the poor-due;
٥ وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ5 And who guard their modesty -
٦ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ6 Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
٧ فَمَنِ ابْتَغَىٰ وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ7 But whoso craveth beyond that, such are transgressors -

Explore2xmore:
Do a lot better than Wikipedia.

Islam is real and practical. At the time of Prophet Muhammad pbuh an effective means of correcting social ills is seen. It wasn't draconian. Consider the stages to forbidding consumption of alcohol as an example.

The term sex slave implies coercion and abuse, which is categorically forbidden in Islam. Captives who made up those whom the right hand posses often became integrated into families, were treated with kindness, and were eventually freed.

Those whom your right hands possess in Islam was a regulated system meant to provide rights and dignity to captives, not to exploit them. It was a significant step in reforming pre-Islamic practices and ultimately led to the abolition of slavery within Islamic societies.

Ma Malakat Aimanukum should be understood within its linguistic context as encompassing various forms of relationships and possessions rather than being narrowly defined as referring only to female slaves. It
is gender-neutral and can refer to both male and female captives.

It can be understood as referring to individuals who are under one’s rightful possession or care. While classical interpretations have leaned towards slavery, contemporary scholars argue that this should be viewed through a lens of marital contracts rather than ownership in the traditional sense.

Lisan-ul-Arab by Ibn-Manzoor Vol. 13 also details this phrase to mean to marry.

TV

Sterope:
I understand but I am reiterating that when it comes to minority they make the issues all about their religion or ethnicity. No one does that about white people. Crime is crime with them except the minority!

On the contrary, in this instance the authorities and institutions that should have dealt with this and nipped it in the bud, not wanting to be labelled racist or Islamophobic were all hesitant to act. Going as far as to turn a blind-eye or even cover up the offences. If the perpetrators had been white or other than Muslim, it wouldn't have persisted for as long as 5 decades according to some accounts.

Sterope:
No UK scholar has come out tell us what and where it is stated in the Qur'an.

A case from the Islamic scriptures is easily made. My take here is the "social outworking", but if you would like to go there, I or any number of NL Religious thread posters could oblige if so inclined.

Sterope:
More cultural than religion biko.

We hear the "culture not religion" trope a lot when defending infarctions by Muslims. But that itself is an indictment of Islam. Of all religions, Islam colours, and in many cases hollows out indigenous culture the most. If Islam is what it claims to be and does what it purports to do, regressive cultural behaviours should be extirpated, not live alongside the religion.

Sterope:
The general belief that white women are sexually liberal therefore they are game for sexual abuse because their culture is sexually liberal.

Yes, the west and it's people are largely "sexually liberal. How does that make them "game for abuse". And at 11-15 years of age, which was the age range of most of the victims and at which statutory consent cannot be given?

And when you say "white women", is that not racist? What about white Muslim women? Or devout religious white women of any faith? Quick to play the racist Islamophobia card when such clear bigotry permeates your own beliefs and thinking.


TV

Explore2xmore:
Please learn more about the Misyar you brought up.

This may not be definitive, but a starting point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misyar_marriage - one thing is clear, it is still much debated and nowhere close to being settled in the Islamic world. Happy to be enlightened further.

Explore2xmore:
This was tied to the socio-economic structure of slavery in historical societies.

Is Islam not valid for all peoples, everywhere for all times? As misyar is practised in the present day, slavery does not appear to be a driver, or even in view in any meaningful way.

Explore2xmore:
Surah Al-Mu’minun (23:5-7) and Surah Al-Ma’arij (70:29-31) highlight that sexual relations are only allowed within the framework of a permanent marriage or with those whom your right hands possess. Those whom the right hand posses refer to concubines in that historical context. Temporary arrangements such as Mut'ah are not included in this allowance.

Concubines aka sex slaves? If these temporary arrangements are "temporary in application", why are they still extant in various guises and the subject of much debate to this day?

Explore2xmore:
Relations with those referred to as whom the right hand posses were not time-bound. The relationship was not temporary like Mut'ah but part of the larger context of slavery, with provisions for eventual emancipation.

Noted for discussion purposes, but without backing, assertions at best. Further, this does not present an "objective morality", or show that both these practices and derivatives are anything more than "slip roads" make sex available.


TV

Sterope:
I like this submission.

Just for emphasis: there is no part of religion that says to grab young girls and groom them. In an islamic country, they will be killed for these crimes.

Jail is too lenient anyways.

Thank you. I won't gainsay the point you make about what the religion says. Not because I agree, but because from a social POV, what is of interest, especially to the non-religious, who know or care little for the scriptures or doctrines, is the "outworking" of the religion.

The title of this thread in part reads "National Inquiry Into Rape Gangs By Muslim Men". Needless to say, across Europe's liberal western democracies, where there are significant minority populations of Muslims, this rape gang phenom occurs. In the UK, it was mostly Pakistani led given they are the majority of this minority population. But this crime occurs whatever the major national\ethnic background of the Muslim men. In fact, in one UK town (it has been documented as happening in over 50), where Somalis make up the majority of the Muslim population, it was Somali led.

Regardless of claims, as to what the religion says, why is there this dissonance? Why does this occur? Does it not happen in Islamic majority countries due to the different treatment of believing vs. non-believing women? Or due to the harshness of the penalties?


TV

Explore2xmore:
Misyar however it's seen is clearly different from Mutah.

Really? How? In outcome they both make sex available - primarily to men, where it should be forbidden.

Explore2xmore:
Ali reported that Allah's Messenger pbuh forbade Mut'ah and the eating of the flesh of domestic donkeys on the day of Khaybar."
(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1407)

The Messenger of Allah pbuh said: 'O people! I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women. But Allah has forbidden it until the Day of Resurrection. So, anyone who has such a woman in his possession, he should let her go, and do not take anything of what you have given them.'"
(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1406)

Hadith are not revelation. In round terms barely 1% of the written hadith are accepted, and even these are not universally agreed - within or between sects. They are typically deployed as a convenience or denied as suits. I find the whole notion of "hadith science" questionable at best.

And note the hadith quoted. Allowed in the past, forbidden then, but to be re-introduced later - not objectively moral.


TV

UncleAyo:
It is never abolished, they still practice it today.

Certainly not in the Koran - although I stand to be corrected? - hence the ongoing dispute.

UncleAyo:
They do it even during hajj in Mecca.

I had heard of sexual impropriety during the hajj, but not sought to explore further. I wouldn't have thought it took the form of mutah given how Sunni' rail against it?

The notion of mutah is at odds with adultery\fornication being sinful. Mutah, along with polygyny, sex slavery, appear to me be saying "it is but it isn't" or "it is, but here're some riders to help you get around it.

This partially informs my view of Islam having no "objective morality". I don't get a true sense of there being right or wrong. The guiding principle appears to be "forbidden or permitted".

The way both mutah and misyar seem to at once codify prostitution into law and reduce marriage to essentially the same level, begs so many questions. Especially since even in it's highest form, Islamic marriage is at best a transactional arrangement.

And to be frank, the driving imperative seems to be sex (and making it readily available to men). This ties into the overall treatment of women. I'm yet to figure out if Islam hates them or fears them more? It certainly appears to traduce them, deny them agency and persistently oppress them.


TV

Mutah is practiced mostly by the Shia sect. Although widely condemned by the majority Sunni' faction, they practice something similar called misyar. Is there evidence for "abrogation"?


TV

These crimes have been rumbling on for decades - always bubbling below the surface, with the occasional limited press scrutiny and political intervention. But there has never been the national will to fully grapple with the issue. It's right to question why Elon Musk chose to get involved at this point, but whatever his motivation, this shameful episode has been a blight on our nation and needs to be addressed. Justice must be done and seen to be done.

Fact – for decades, gangs of Muslim, mostly Pakistani males have been grooming, raping, trafficking, drugging and in some instances murdering, young, mostly white girls. Other ethnicities, religions and even boys have also been targeted, albeit to a much lesser extent.

Fact – these crimes and the violent, perverse nature of them, were exacerbated by a religious and cultural mindset, which viewed these children as essentially sub-human and undeserving of basic human dignity.

Fact – the perpetrators were often closely connected, with patterns of family ties (inter-generationally in many instances), kinship groups and neighbours clearly discernable.

Fact – there was little by way of tip-offs, whistleblowing or push-back from within the community itself. Those charged and imprisoned were wholeheartedly welcomed back by their families, communities and places of worship - often in close proximity to their victims.

Fact – during court cases, family members of the perpetrators were openly hostile and aggressive towards the victims and unashamedly affectionate towards their convicted male relatives.

Fact – the officials and authorities who should have protected and then come to the rescue of these children were often complicit. Turning blind eyes, denying them succour and redress. Guilty of high-level cover-ups, and in some instances actually involved in the crimes.

Could someone please explain how it works: A younger male initiates the grooming and then passes the victim onto an older male relative? A man rapes a child and call’s his brother, cousin, friends or work colleagues to “have-a-go”?

That is why it can be clearly tied to a community and religious mindset. There are “stories” of Imams stating in mosques that the worst of the rapists are still better and more likely to enter paradise than Christians.

Fact – there is a sordid history of child abuse and sex crimes in this nation. From high-profile cases like Jimmy Saville and several MP’s. Persistent rumours about goings-on in the “upper echelons” of society. Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein anybody? The church and even boarding schools have all been implicated.

In that sense, this saga could be viewed as another facet of this evil. But, along and alike with all the others, the demand should be that it is persecuted till justice is done and seen to be done.


TV

Those who are accusing KB of politicking do have a point. The fact remains that in 14 years of being in power, her party did little to seriously tackle this issue. And yes, it’s an ongoing phenomenon. They sense the national mood and the direction the political wind is blowing and are acting accordingly. All the parties are equally corrupt.

Fact – for decades, gangs of Muslim, mostly Pakistani males have been grooming, raping, trafficking, drugging and in some instances murdering, young, mostly white girls. Other ethnicities, religions and even boys have also been targeted, albeit to a much lesser extent.

Fact – these crimes and the violent, perverse nature of them, were exacerbated by a religious and cultural mindset, which viewed these children as essentially sub-human and undeserving of basic human dignity.

Fact – the perpetrators were often closely connected, with patterns of family ties (inter-generationally in many instances), kinship groups and neighbours clearly discernable.

Fact – there was little by way of tip-offs, whistleblowing or push-back from within the community itself. Those charged and imprisoned were wholeheartedly welcomed back by their families, communities and places of worship - often in close proximity to their victims.

Fact – during court cases, family members of the perpetrators were openly hostile and aggressive towards the victims and unashamedly affectionate towards their convicted male relatives.

Fact – the officials and authorities who should have protected and then come to the rescue of these children were often complicit. Turning blind eyes, denying them succour and redress. Guilty of high-level cover-ups, and in some instances actually involved in the crimes.

Could someone please explain how it works: A younger male initiates the grooming and then passes the victim onto an older male relative? A man rapes a child and call’s his brother, cousin, friends or work colleagues to “have-a-go”?

That is why it can be clearly tied to a community and religious mindset. There are “stories” of Imams stating in mosques that the worst of the rapists are still better and more likely to enter paradise than Christians.

Fact – there is a sordid history of child abuse and sex crimes in this nation. From high-profile cases like Jimmy Saville and several MP’s. Persistent rumours about goings-on in the “upper echelons” of society. Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein anybody? The church and even boarding schools have all been implicated.

In that sense, this saga could be viewed as another facet of this evil. But, along and alike with all the others, the demand should be that it is persecuted till justice is done and seen to be done.


TV

OkCornel:
Yeah right... I never answered TVs questions Well done.

Quite literally not one! I don’t see how anyone can review your submissions and behaviour on this thread and not find them somewhat odd – to put it mildly.

You have made swelling assertions about “truth” and “persons”, emphatically witnessing them as attested to by the Holy Spirit and, denying anyone to even query such presumptions!

On that basis, It seemed a shoo-in that you’d be able to answer a few simple questions to give some substance to your views and hopefully a modicum of edification to readers.

But no, it’s been a blanket refusal to respond, either by simply not responding, answering questions with totally unrelated posers or, driving the discussion down pointless dead-ends.

Further, you have resorted to various ruses to deflect attention from the issues that would really provide edification for many who are following. It’s been “All headlines, no story” – what are you about here?

Your “before the rooster crows thrice” manoeuvre on Mr. Hagin was quite astonishing to behold. More so, after which you immediately referred to his books as obligatory reading ahead of continuing with a certain line of discussion.

Which self-authored books did you read ahead of calling out Mr. Oyedepo on tithing, or Muttleylaff on same-sex intimacy?
Strangely, in your railing against obligatory tithing and the sinful nature of same-s3x relationships, you resorted solely to scripture to make your case – and rightly so.

Yet here, your attempts to “spiritualise” your position and effectively side-line the Spirit-breathed scriptures is, again, odd at best?
Most of your assertions simply collapse under the weight of their own contradictions. More importantly, it must be said that literally nothing you have posted passes muster in light of the gospel.

Not that I’m gainsaying your right to believe whatsoever you choose. However, one would have thought that a self-proclaimed seeker of truth would delight in openness and honesty.

You can of course falsify some of the above by making concerted responses to questions - and not just mine .


Cheers
TV

Is this a response to whether you could rightly be described as a follower and affirmer of Mr.Hagin and his ministry .
As for questions, I left a few for you in my last post . I will not chase you for answers. But whether you do or do not, it speaks volumes .


TV

OkCornel:
I have two questions.

1) Have you read The Triumphant Church?

2) Can you show us where what Jesus revealed to Hagin is inconsistent with the scriptures?


I have other books as well.

a) Battles of the Elohim
b) Conspiracy theories and the cross.


If you haven't read those books, please don't bother responding.

Shepherd00:
@OkCornel, I see you are a very strong believer and follower of Late Kenneth E.Hagin. I know you are a fierce opposer of monetary tithing, do you know Pastor Hagin was a strong proponent of Tithe payment?

I joined this discussion not so much due to the content, or what could be described as the "unbalanced" nature of some of it. There were many who touched on that point and I didn't need to add my voice. In fact, I would rather, and yet may, ask questions of it, rather than question it.

However, an even stronger driver for me was the question of "authenticity". Specifically, of those who claim to have been commissioned/sent by God and/or experienced a divine encounter with The Lord. Especially in light of the gospel and real practical experience.

A corollary to this is the seeming default of an almost universal acceptance. An a prior assumption, that they are indeed sent. This is often allied with a claim of "spiritual witness", which is in itself a form of defence and a foreclosure of any discussion.

In short, are there any false prophets, or false teachers, wolves in sheep clothing nko? All I hear is a consensus agreement that they are indeed sent, but may have erred along the way and, God sent them like that and they remain His servants and His to judge?

OkCornel:
You assume wrongly that I am a strong believer and follower of Late Kenneth Hagin.
That means absolutely anything Hagin preaches, I ought to swallow it hook, line and sinker. It doesn't work that way.

One would hope that a Christian's belief is always in God and/or The Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work. Having said that;

- You have repeatedly and strongly championed this man as someone who heard from The Lord
- Argued for some of His utterances to be esteemed as highly as canonical text
- Named him as someone called to office by God in this age
- Testified to having a witness to his mandate
- Posted excerpts form His writings (which you claim to have read extensively)

I apologise in advance if I've mis-ascribed anything to you, and kindly correct me if I am wrong in any of the above, but in light of the them, how could you not be?

TV

OkCornel:
Thanks for taking out time for this dialogue

No problem - hopefully we can all be edified

OkCornel:
I am still keen on the parameters regarding this written gospel truth. Is it limited to the writings of the Apostles? Is the gospel truth limited to a set of books. Yes or No. If yes, how many are they? So we can have a defined landmark for what is within/scriptures or canon.

The gospel is the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ. Specifically to mankind regards Gods unfolding plan of redemption. That is fully captured within the canon of biblical scripture.

A discussion of whether this should be 66 books or 72, the Catholic Bible or the one compiled by the Egyptian Coptic church, is to me irrelevant, unless you can show that the good news (of/the gospel) of our Lord Jesus Christ is materially affected by using one or the other.

OkCornel:
How many gospels/canons are we talking of here? 66? over 80?

As above

OkCornel:
This is not about getting extra materials that will contradict the gospel. How many canons makes up the scriptures that contain the gospel? If it's not open ended, how do we determine its completeness? How many canons are involved here?

I hope the above suffices? Please be specific about what is unclear if anything.

"If it is not open-ended how do we determine it's completeness", is a question for you to answer. I understand the canon to be completed with the writings of the apostles. The canonised faith has "once been delivered to all". Is there other/further truth out there? certainly, but it in no way changes the gospel message. Indeed, if it is open-ended, how can it at once be complete. Specifically the gospel, not personal intimations.

OkCornel:
You cannot know ALL TRUTH in a fixed period of time, albeit in this realm of existence. There is definitely a limit to what you can know by your own capacity. Since you cannot live forever in this realm of existence. The scope of ALL TRUTH however in this regard is not limited to religious beliefs. But all spheres of your life.
Well unless your argument is the Holy Spirit is only useful for scriptural matters, as opposed to all areas of your life. Be it career, spirituality, academics e.t.c.

So you are now limiting your "All TRUTH" proclamation"? Is it now the "gospel truth and personal intimations", not "everything about everything"?

Further , you further compromise your own postulations as you have claimed one needs to be a minimum (level2) of a genius to apprehend unwritten truth, and a prophet or seer (level 3) to avail oneself of unknown truth?

OkCornel:
All of the above. And if the OP deviates from the path, the same Holy Spirit will bring it to my attention. That brings us to 1 John 2 v 26-27 again.

So the contradiction between the OP and Pa Hagin - both of whom you witness to - did the Holy Spirit bring that to your attention and provide clarification?

OkCornel:
Again, that brings us to what ALL TRUTH means. Is it ALL TRUTH...or ALL SCRIPTURAL/GOSPEL TRUTH? . And back to the matter of gospel truth, how many books makes up the gospel TRUTH. I have not gotten your answer on this.

I believe you have. Please let me know if there is anything specific.

OkCornel:
My question is this. Is the prophecy or revelation any less of a TRUTH since it is not written in the Bible? Is that prophecy/revelation the word of God or the word of man?

That something s true, or even the word of God does not make it canonical or necessarily pertinent to the truth of the gospel.

There is not a different or additional, or as yet unrevealed redemptive work of God. Or additional work of The Lord Jesus Christ, which is what would be considered canonical or gospel truth at this point.

OkCornel:
And by something that directly imparts the gospel as received, do you mean...contradicting it? Absolutely not.

Ok

OkCornel:
Examples of progressive revelation within the time frame of the scriptures;
(a) Judah's captivity in Babylon was to last for 70 years as God revealed to Jeremiah. However, Daniel got further revelation on the matter to mean 490 years as the timespan.
(b) Prior to John's Revelation on a first and second resurrection, every other place in the scriptures pointed to both the righteous and wicked resurrected and judged on the same day. Nowhere else did we hear of a first and second resurrection.
(c) The era of the Law, then the Judges, then the Prophets...prior to the revelation of the Messiah is a big picture showing progressive revelation of the Truth and man's understanding of God over the ages.

All canonised. All captured within the gospel. If you insist on the term, show an example of progressive revelation outside the written canon. And one that is relevant/applicable to the body of Christ or even a significant part of it.

OkCornel:
Coming to know of any progressive revelation or unwritten truth that contradicts the core of the gospel...I don't know of any.

Not only not contradicts, but also, not adds or, not reveals, anything new in terms of the gospel abi? So what then is progressive revelation outside the gospel?

OkCornel:
Again, I do not know of any of those revelations that affects the core gospel truth. Although there are evidences, but those I've known of do not contradict the gospel.

Please explicate on what you term "evidence", as if it does not contradict nor embellish the gospel, it sounds like it is of no relevance

OkCornel:
It is not a "Christian/gospel derived framework" simply because it's not written black and white in the Bible. But that's what it is. Where do Prophets and seers get their revelations of Truth from? The Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit a written document? No. He is the Spirit of God, the source of all truth. Yet, they get their revelations from an unwritten source and pen it down. Just like the case of John's revelation. It was a truth once observable and witnessed by him, before it was written.

Then as I requested, corroborate it from the bible (any one of your choice), or the gospel contained within.

OkCornel:
It is a universal framework that the scriptures even derives its origins from. So it's the other way around.

Then please show how the scriptures (specifically the gospel/canon) derive from this universal framework, which it quite clearly contradicts.

OkCornel:
For clarity, are we talking of a positive effect or adverse effect? Thanks as I await feedback, especially on the number of canons that makes up the gospel.

Either. In any way whatsoever.

The canon is the number of books that comprise the Holy Scriptures or, bible if you prefer. The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which is the power of God to salvation is contained therein.


Cheers
TV

OkCornel:
1.

I initiated this discussion - and thanks for responding - with particular themes I wished to explore. However, I find that the discussion is becoming ever more expansive with more questions than answers and increasing adjunct issues, whilst not really touching on the themes as I envisaged. Let me sum up my response to what I believe are your questions;

1. Is there truth outside scripture or the canon - yes, but the gospel truth contains all we need to understand Gods unfolding plan for redemption and salvation in Jesus Christ.

2. Is the gospel canon complete - yes, per above

3. Can we perfectly "rightsize" the scriptures that contain the gospel? - a superfluous question unless it can be evidenced that there are verifiable texts that materially change the gospel as we have it. Or, the gospel can be demonstrated to be somehow incomplete.

Now, if you are not gainsaying the above in any way, a bit about your take on "ALL TRUTH"

1. If as you claim The Holy Spirit will lead believers into "ALL TRUTH" as in everything about everything, how is scope applied to that? What living person can take in and comprehend everything about everything? Why would we need to know everything (about everything)? The Holy Spirit is The Helper, what constitute the limits of this help?

Your claim a witness to OP, did The Holy Spirit affirm OPs office and calling or simply the writings here? Have you been subsequently led into all truth about the OP or, the extent of the writings here? everything about everything right?

2. As to The Holy Spirit giving personal intimations, God is sovereign. Leading, direction, insight etc. can all be given to individuals, but I don't see how that has to be captured as gospel truth or considered canonical?

3. As to God giving someone a "prophecy or revelation" about Nigeria and it coming to pass, I would have to see evidence of that and understand what the purpose of the prophecy or revelation was.

4. To your use of the term "progressive revelation". Again, I do not see what this means in light of scripture. If it is something that directly impacts the gospel as received, I would need to see evidence of this. If it's simply individual intimations or leading, again, that is not for the body and therefore not required to be canonical anyway.

5. About the undocumented early life of The Lord and the unrecorded signs and miracles. Yes these are truth, but again, please evidence anyone that has been led into these truths by the Holy Spirit, what they are and how, if they, in anyway affect gospel truth. And, if at the individual level, claims of such and how they impacted a personal walk.


Regards the framework below. I not sure it's provenance, but I don't see it as a Christian/gospel derived framework. Again, like I said, I will not gainsay your beliefs, but view what is presented in the light of the gospel.

So far example the requirement to be a genius at level 2, a prophet or seer at level 3 amongst other things are simply not scriptural. However, you are free to apply whatever framework you choose. Will you disclose this as not Christian in origin or otherwise corroborate it against scripture?

Is there any unwritten and unknown truth that has been revealed to anyone, anywhere that is not simply a personal intimation but a general revelation that would effect the whole or, a very significant part of the body of Christ, or the gospel itself?

LEVELS OF TRUTH

In life...there are four levels of TRUTH that determines your level of wisdom and intelligence;

1) Written and Known Truth: Can be deciphered by logic. Anybody with an open mind to learn starts from here
2) Unwritten and Known Truth: Can be deciphered by a combination of logic and creativity. Geniuses operate at this level
3) Written and Unknown Truth: These are documented mysteries that can only be deciphered at the right time. Genuine Prophets and Seers operate at this level.
4) Unwritten and Unknown Truth: This can be deciphered by a combination of intuition and total dependence on the Spirit of TRUTH i.e. Master of the Universe and Multiverse. Only Sages operate on the 4th level of TRUTH having passed the previous levels.

Cheers
TV

My primary purpose on posting, as always was to pose my position regards gospel truth. That is, weigh it against what I feel is being posited by other posters. They are a number of things which, if time permits, I will yet touch on regards this thread.

There are however other concerns that I am impressed to touch on. In all, I would sum them up as an “imprecatory” attitude, which, is not Christian. Menacing and often vengeful in its deployment, I would advise God-fearing people to refrain from it.

The first is a threat of divine retribution - typically accompanied by a self-arrogated status above other believers - when challenged or, if perhaps the cut and thrust gets heated. It is not necessary or befitting.

Secondly, there is the recourse to labelling. Typically labelling contrary posters Satanists, witches, Jezebels, or in some way possessing a demonic spirit. Indeed, there may be times where this is the case, it may even be glaringly apparent. The truth is real instances should actually be handled more sensitively. We wrestle not against flesh and blood.

Mostly such descriptions are not applied legitimately, but spitefully at best. By all means point out people’s errors, resist scripturally and with scripture, but let us eschew these kind of attacks.

The third, and possible worst, is something I’ve only seen on this thread. The notion that Christians that suffer illness are somehow lesser beings, or that there suffering is as a result of sin and, further delighting in the claim as a sort of judgement is in Christian terms, far beyond the pale.

In fact, if I had not counselled against labelling above, I may well be throwing around a few choice names myself at this point. This 3rd point could perhaps use a scriptural rejoinder?

This kind of thing can only take a downward trajectory, and can become culturally embedded if not stopped in its tracks. Believe me, this board will offer little by way of edification if it descends to that.

Many have fallen short here. In the hope that it will stop, I’ll not name and shame. Please, a word will hopefully be enough. On the contrary, let our words be seasoned with grace, me included. I know I can be testy .


May The Lord help us all
TV

OkCornel:
In other words, you cannot tell us the number of books the scriptures is limited to.

The essence of the scripture is the gospel. As long as that is captured whole in the canon, why does this question arise? Please make a concise point here.

OkCornel:
The boundaries of ALL TRUTH lies in God. He is the only being with the absolute monopoly of truth.

From the POV of Gods unfolding plan of redemption, the saving work of The Lord Jesus Christ, do we need truth outside the "Gospel Truth". Or put anther way, is there "truth" outside the gospel that is required to make our calling and election sure?

Yes God knows everything, do we need to know everything likewise? And specifically, do we need to know in order to apprehend the gospel. The "All Truth" from the scriptures has a context and application. Yet you would use that from the scripture to render the same scripture void?

Please make your points substantive. Give examples of truth not revealed in scripture which would materially change the gospel message or Christian orthodoxy. Kindly detail some of this unwritten truth for us to consider

OkCornel:
And yet knowledge and prophecy are some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Gnosticism is soul led. If you are led of the Spirit of God, He will guide you into ALL TRUTH (be it written or unwritten). Do you know the difference between soul led knowledge and spirit led knowledge? It is what is leading you that makes the difference i.e. your soul or the spirit of God.

And any such knowledge or prophecy will perfectly accord with the gospel as revealed. If it is a "personal" intimation, then it has no need to be "generally published" or a concern of the body, and will not materially change the gospel or orthodoxy.

Further, there are other spirits out there that a person can be led by. Your insistence that The Holy Spirit leads people into general revelation that is yet unwritten needs to be supported by evidence.

OkCornel:
1. Are you disputing the fact that Truth proves itself with the passage of time?
2. Per the bolded, does the Holy Spirit still move today? If he does...and yet such moves are not canonized...does it make it not the word of God?

1. Another statement in which I struggle to see any substance? Yes, truth does prove itself over time, does that mean it cannot be immediate. The proclamation of Jesus' divinity by Peter which you love to point to - did that have to incubate? Unction was given, it was spoken and it has endured. Has the truth of the gospel in any part been falsified at any point?
2. Yes the Holy Spirit moves. Case in point, convicted me and revealed Christ to me, does that need to be canonised?

What is the point of insisting on canonical additions or changes or expanding the canon if the gospel is not materially changed? And, if you have any "truth" - written or unwritten - which does just that, please share, or this whole exercise becomes rather pointless - for it's own sake

OkCornel:
My question remains unanswered. Which scripture or written truth did Peter refer to in his time to receive insight that Jesus is the son of God?

I did answer. It was unction given by the Holy Spirit and uttered in that age, during that time of Gods unfolding purpose. It is now canonised as scripture. You are attempting to make a point for extra-canonical scripture, by referring to something that is canonised? I also pointed out that Jesus could be discerned from the scripture extant at the time.

OkCornel:
So that means John was wrong to mention all the acts of Jesus could not be written?

The acts that were written were comprehensive, if not exhaustive. Note the point in scripture about the huge effort that would be required to record all The Lords acts. It did not need to be an exhaustive record. That which was captured details all we require.

The prophecies about The Lord said inter-alia, he would heal, set free etc. Multiple instances of all those things are captured. Again, what is your point?

If John records the truth of Z number of miracles, yet The Lord actually did 70 x Z, are we somehow missing truth? Is the gospel patchy or otherwise insufficient. Please present something substantive.

OkCornel:
I will share some of my experiences as time goes on. Although, it does not in anyway invalidate the written gospel.

And like I said, if it doesn't invalidate the gospel or materially add to it, then it's not-canonical. If you claim there are sent apostles and prophets in this age who have material general revelation, then please provide evidence for us to consider.

Kindly share some of this unwritten truth with those of us who hold dearly to the written truth of the gospel - let's see practical application of the "truth" framework you provided, otherwise it remains baseless and merely assertive

OkCornel:
You mean just as the early believers between 33 AD to 96 AD were susceptible to confusion and deceit?

1. If Jesus capped the words of God to His acts and miracles in His lifetime...what becomes of the writings of the Apostles?
2. If the Apostles capped the words of God to letters written in their lifetime... what becomes of the Epistles of early church fathers like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen e.t.c. or you mean those men were not inspired by the Holy Spirit as well?

That susceptibility would have been in part due to the lack of an authoritative canon
1. I made no such claim - more later.
2. That is besides the point. They early church father writings are here, we can read them. Do they contain anything that materially changes the gospel? Then they do not need to be included. Do they edify?? Then they can be read. Where they inspired. Did they claim inspiration? And even if they were, does every inspired utterance or writing have to be canonised?

OkCornel:
Please how does the lie of Ananias and Sapphira revealed by the Holy Spirit to Peter fit in this context?

Asked and answered - exactly the same as Peters proclamation about The Lord Jesus Christ.

OkCornel:
Lemme ask you, are all text outside of the Bible not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

If by all text you mean all Christian type text, or all claimed holy text I don't know, and from a gospel perspective I don't believe I need to.

OkCornel:
And isn't your message here contradicting John's admonition of the Holy Spirit leading believers into ALL TRUTH?

I see the error here as thinking all truth means "everything about everything". The angel proclaimed to Zacharias whom he was and how he "stood in the presence of God" and had been sent.

Now, I suppose that through time, there have been numerous instructions from God to Angel Gabriel and a number of significant events as a result. Do I need to be led into the truth of them all? Do I as a gospel believer, as a Christian need to see the meeting minutes. Will they be in any way instructive or guide my walk?

Your use of "ALL TRUTH" is nebulous at best Substantiate what import this usage has, if any, with real detail.

OkCornel:
Please read verse 13 again. Did it say the Spirit of Truth will lead you into some truths?

Kindly read through to verse 15, there are clearly parameters to what the "all" consisted of. And as always, you are invited to show otherwise.

OkCornel:
No, you are missing the point. Which scripture spoke specifically against the Nicolaitans prior to the revelation John got? If indeed all scriptures were supposed to be capped and canonized at a particular point in time?

I shouldn't have to, but for expediencies sake; The NT canon is essentially the life of he Lord and the acts and experience of the Apostles. When The Lord was here on earth and when the Apostles were around the canon was essentially with us (and being played out, filmed in a sense) but not all written. Those who could refute the heresy with direct testimony where as it were, on ground. Now they are not and we have a completed canon. This is no longer that very specific apostolic and foundation era.

OkCornel:
1. Does the Holy Spirit still move people to witness?
2. What witness do modern day Apostles have? The fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You know these or don't you...
And TV01, so I take it that everything on the TRUTH is limited to what is written isn't it? This is a classic case of mistaking the written TRUTH for complete TRUTH. Every written truth you have today was once upon a time unwritten.

1. Yes
2. Indeed, I woul dthat you would first show how we witness to those claiming to be "modern day apostles. As for the gifts and fruit, Again yes. Indeed the gifts for the church are clearly outlined and the fruits are evidentiary/testing tools

I don't mistake anything. My point is that the written truth of the gospel is sufficient for the Christian apprehension of Gods redemptive purpose in Christ Jesus.

OkCornel:
Truth in its purest form is unwritten, observable and proves its authenticity over time. You cannot dispute this. Call me over-sabi if you like...but that's what the Truth is. Lol...after all, even Paul got similar remarks in Acts 26 v 24.

I was being polite calling you over-sabi . And kind when I term this another unsubstantiated statement

OkCornel:
I guess you have shifted the goal post to imply unwritten truth counters written truth. Please I am still looking for where I mentioned unwritten truth automatically invalidates the gospel TV01.

No I haven't. I am asking you to demonstrate your claim to unwritten truth. Specifically where it materially alters the gospel. Either by yourself or one of "the modern day apostles" you bear witness to. This should not be too onerous and present an end to all discussion .

OkCornel:
You keep on emphasizing on the product (scriptures) as the first point of reference rather than the source (the Holy Spirit).

For your individual walk with God, by all means go direct - that is my byword. But for family of potentially billions, separated by a number of things, how would you present a unified message to them all? What nation has a leader who alone knows the constitution and presents it to each citizen individually?

OkCornel:
That is tantamount to placing the cart before the horse.

As you please

OkCornel:
After all, Satan still quoted scriptures to Jesus in the temptation at the wilderness. I pray tell, how did Jesus overcome except by the help of the Holy Spirit providing guidance. Or was it not the Holy Spirit that led Jesus to fast in the wilderness in the first place?

And the guidance that The Holy Spirit gave was scriptural references. The leading into the wilderness was about The Lords personal mission. Are all believers required to go into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil as part of their walks?

OkCornel:
I'll give you another poser.

1. What scriptures did the likes of Adam or Enoch consult in their walk with God?
2. What scriptures did the likes of those that lived in the days of Enosh consult in order to call upon the name of the Lord in Genesis 4 v 26?

1. Really . Let me put it like this - when I am physically present with my wife, I am not reading the letters she has written me
2. The pre-flood patriarchs lived vast ages. There was much generational overlap and there would have been a strong oral tradition. From the beginning, the presence and knowledge of God was real and known.

Adam communed with God and all his immediate descendants would have learnt about this. They couldn't not know who God was. Even Cain and Abel conversed directly? They understood what led to the post-fall state.

See, I read non-canonical writings and appreciate some non-scriptural truths, hoping to glean insights that can be woven together .

Unless you have something that clearly demonstrates the truth of your assertions, I believe we are all but done here. I possibly have a further note on some of my observations here and that should be it for me. I no get stamina for 80 pagers again jor.


Cheers
TV

OkCornel:
I need you to clearly tell us what the inspired scriptures are. Are the scriptures limited at 66 books of the Bible? Or does the scriptures include more than 66 books.

By now you should know there is no general consensus in the Christendom as to what the number of books makes up the scriptures.
1) The first version of the KJV Bible (The 1611 KJV Bible) contains more than 66 books.
2) The Ethiopian Bible (which is one of the oldest bibles in existence today) contains more than 80 books, are the books outside the 66 books not inspired of the Holy Spirit? I need a clear answer along these lines. .

I have responded to this previously, but again; as long as the canon contains the gospel and a true representation of Jesus Christ - his divinity, his death, his resurrection, his perfect and completed work - along with instruction for the fullness of Christian life and conduct, with nothing that contradicts or otherwise compromises, I have no problem with some variation in what differing denominations consider as canon.

In the same way I have little issue with most of the bible version available. Even the ones I would typically steer far clear off can be compared against a plethora of others for balance.

I have read a number of ex-canonical works - I loved Jasher - including Enoch, but in as much as they did not in anyway contradict the gospel, I have no problem with them.

The fact that there is not 100% agreement on what represents canon in no way falsifies the gospel. And it is reaching to suggest there are other texts or claimed revelations that must be considered canon or equivalent to canon, just because they are true or even inspired.

OkCornel:
I have answered what ALL TRUTH is here;
https://www.nairaland.com/5252047/cultism-spiritual-consequences-deliverance-through/78#82029437 .

I asked for the boundaries of all truth. You provided a taxonomy of sorts, which, is no way attested to by the scriptures.Actually it is, in that it falls into the "Greek" box.

Is there knowledge and truth outside the scriptures? certainly. Is the knowledge and truth required for a revelation of Gods redemptive purpose, the salvific work of Christ and the fullness of the Christian life within the scriptures, absolutely. One does not need the latter to avail of the former.

It smacks of gnosis, hence my reference to the "Greek seeking for wisdom/knowledge". One need not need be a genius, a prophet or a seer. Indeed the NT amply falsifies all such notion for all who put their faith in Christ.

OkCornel:
1. Let me give you another instance. Which scripture did Peter read, or which additional witness or internal coherence did Peter need to expose the lies of Ananias and Sapphira? These were believers as well. .

An instance of a verified Apostle being led by the spirit? Yet non of your submissions have really addressed my initial question regards verification in any detsil. Further, this was immediate action by the Holy Spirit, not something proven true "with the passage of time" which is another notion you frequently resort to. What happened was a move of the Holy Spirit and is now canonised.

OkCornel:
2. You have also left the initial question I asked you on Peter unanswered. Which scriptures/internal coherence did Peter obtain to get the revelation Jesus is the Son of God in Matthew 16 v 15-16...when Jesus asked everyone who He was?
Which written truth (scriptures) did Peter refer to at that point in time before knowing Jesus was the Son of God? Whereas others were calling Jesus...John the Baptist, Elijah, Prophet Jeremiah or one of the prophets?

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now look at Jesus' response in Matthew 16 v 17;
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. .

Exactly as I responded above. Further, the fact that many failed to recognise Jesus from the scriptures does not mean He could not be, as He himself testified - "...these are they which speak of Me". And, it was a testimony of the Gospel truth and of Jesus being whom He claimed to be - now canonised.

OkCornel:
The scriptures are not redundant. It is a written form of the truth. Truth first exists in an unwritten form before it is written. Again, please go and check what I defined as ALL TRUTH. Christendom has mistaken and taken written truth for complete truth. The complete truth can never be documented in a set of books.

Au contraire; the truth of the gospel can be and is. Gods unfolding plan of redemption, the saving work of Jesus Christ and the fullness of Christian living and conduct. That is the truth of the gospel.

Needless taxonomies and boasting in prowess is exactly why God has - glory hallelujah - chosen the lowly, the weak, the despised and the things that are not to bring to nowt the things that think they are. God will make foolish those that prate about intellect, genius and their own supposed prudence.

OkCornel:
Even the acts of Jesus alone, if all were to be recorded...the world will not contain it. Unless you are telling us the unrecorded acts of Jesus are also not part of the TRUTH. .

But we have a sufficiency of the truth for the purpose of the gospel. You that are privy to "ALL TRUTH", or even some of this non-documented truth, please share some of it that in any way changes or otherwise falsifies the gospel.

OkCornel:
Because going through the product without any guidance or understanding from the source will leave you susceptible to confusion and deceit. It's like trying to use a complex gadget without going through the user guide.

No, what will lead you susceptible to confusion and deceit if believing in an open-ended canon, and divine general revelation that is uncapped and from unverified sources - not to mention not universally published.

OkCornel:
I have asked you again, what the general consensus in Christian orthodoxy accept as inspired scriptures;
1. Are they pegged at 66 books? or are they more than 66 books?
2. Why didn't the Jesus and the Apostles at a particular point in time limit the scriptures to a set of books in their lifetime? Knowing fully well the Holy Spirit is still in the business of revealing THE TRUTH to everyone rooted in Him? .

have clearly responded to this. If it is a conundrum, it remains one of your own intellect. The Truth revealed by The Holy Spirit is the glorious light of the marvellous gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ, which is the power of God to salvation.

The work of the Holy Spirit is not to teach everyone all truth about everything. not least because that would take a thousand lifetimes. Nor is the Holy Spirit "leading everyone", nor necessarily illuminating text He did not inspire, whatever claims are made for such writings.

OkCornel:
Perhaps, I'll be more specific to use the word believers... rather than "everyone". Again, refer to 1 John 2 v 26-27. .

Another area where the error is clear. Contrast with John 16 per the bolded, the truth The Holy Spirit illuminates is that of Christ Jesus, He glorifies the Son. Re-read your quoted verse from 24. The anointing and leading are to illuminate and re-enforce what they had heard, not some endless leading into anything that qualifies as true - it was specifically gospel truth.

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

OkCornel:
1. In Acts 6, Nicolas one of the selected deacons who believed in Jesus was appointed and commisioned
2. He was prayed upon by the Spirit-filled Apostles
3. He later on propagated the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which taught Christianity can be mixed with participating in Pagan rites.
4. John got a direct revelation from Jesus in the letters written to the churches warning about that. That direct revelation later came to form part of the scriptures as we know it today. But at that point in time, there was no scripture talking specifically against the deed of the Nicolaitans prior to when John got the revelation.

So what, it's canonised now?

OkCornel:
I am sorry, you have not been specific enough on what the scripture is precisely. Is the Bible with 66 books or those with more than 66 books. .

I believe I have been consistently specific and detailed. Now pray tell us exactly how you receive validation of those sent with hot off the press divine general revelation.

OkCornel:
1. Are you trying to tell us ALL TRUTH can be tied down and limited to a set of books?
2. Does it mean the undocumented deeds of Jesus do not form part of the TRUTH as well?
3. Again I ask you, what written truth did Peter rely on to expose Ananias & Sapphira as liars...or to get the revelation that Jesus is the son of God? .

1. All required gospel truth can
2. Are those documented not sufficient for us to grasp and apprehend the fullness of the gospel? Please share some that change the gospel in a material way. Your points lack follow through - assertions without substance. Trite sounding from an over-sabi perspective, but mostly baseless.
3. The Holy Spirit moved to witness the Apostles and at the same time inspire scripture in that era/age. What witness do your modern day Apostles have regards their claims of divine revelation?

OkCornel:
Again, I will repeat this. The Holy Spirit is the source of ALL TRUTH and will guide every believer into ALL TRUTH. Well unless you have mistaken written truth to be complete truth. .

Repeat it as often as you feel led, it changes nothing - which of the deeds of Jesus not documented in the scriptures has been revealed to you? After all, they are true right? But we have enough of His works, signs, and testimonies within what is written.

If you can indeed lay claim to having being led to just one undocumented truth, pray tell how it changes the gospel as it stands. Alternatively, name one truth, that is not in the canon/gospel as historically revealed, by someone you bear witness too that materially changes the gospel as we have it, or changes/falsifies the faith as it has been delivered. If you are able I may find cause to reconsider, otherwise, all I hear is a mish-mash of baseless assertions grounded in - to put it politely "over-thougth" theology.

OkCornel:
Please tell me, how else can one know if one who was truly sent, later veers off into error without checking with the Holy Spirit for witness? Is it through the same scriptures that can be twisted by anyone to suit their narratives?

Either way you look at it, you cannot isolate the Holy Spirit from the verification process. He is the revealer and confirmer of ALL TRUTH.

Anyone can claim office or divine revelation and being sent or led, but the scripture is clear on how to test and verify them. And The Holy Spirit revealed the truth of the scripture as our first reference point


Cheers
TV

OkCornel:
I am afraid you are missing the point entirely here. Anyone can claim to have a divine revelation. Your responsibility as a believer is to cross-check with the Spirit of God for veracity or otherwise of such claims. The Spirit of God will lead you into ALL TRUTH (unless you are mistaking written truth for the complete truth)

Firstly the Spirit of God has already inspired scriptural truth as a first point of reference. Secondly, the scriptures contain the fullness of the gospel truth - they are complete. Thirdly, I await your definition of what "ALL TRUTH" encompasses

Fourth, your narrative already seems to lack an internal coherence. If, as you claim, the "Spirit of God" leads you into all truth, what need have you of 3rd parties? Why not hear "ALL TRUTH" direct? Why is there a need for you to hear from others and then go back "to source" to ratify when you are directly connected "to source"?

Fifth, your position effectively falsifies or makes the scriptures redundant. If there is continuing general revelation outside the scripture, which is being revealed by those "sent" even today, then we are working with an incomplete canon. How are the updates published to the body? If indeed there is truth pertaining to salvation, righteousness and worship of God not found in biblical scripture

OkCornel:
That brings me to the question I asked you earlier. What is your understanding of the scripture?
Should the product be focused on at the expense of the source?

I believe I answered this in my previous response. In as much as you utilise the terms product and source, what leads you to believe their is a need for such a distinction?

OkCornel:
When the letter to Timothy was written... are you aware the book of Revelation was not yet in existence...and as such would not have formed part of the ALL SCRIPTURES in 2 Timothy 3 v 16?

I am also further pressed to ask, why didn't Jesus and the Apostles set a limit to the number of books in circulation to be noted as spirit inspired scriptures?

My posers above speak to this. If you do not subscribe to the completeness of the gospel message and the sufficiency of the truth therein for salvation and the fullness of the Christian life, simply say so. That is a huge departure from what would be considered Christian orthodoxy, so much so as to not be considered Christian, but you have a right to your beliefs.

OkCornel:
The main thing is, what is the Spirit of God telling you? Or are you of the opinion the Spirit of God can mislead people?

The Holy Spirit has inspired scripture and has breathed all that is required in the sense I noted immediately above

OkCornel:
Again, what is your definition of the scriptures? 66 books?
Who defined and set a limit to what is the Holy Spirit inspired and canonized scriptures? was it God or some men?

I have pointed you to the fullness of the message - outlined above

OkCornel:
The Holy Spirit that leads everyone into ALL TRUTH is the ultimate.

I not sure the thinking behind this particular statement, but from am orthodox Christian perspective it is riddled with error - to put it politely. The Holy Spirit does not lead "everyone". And the truth the Holy Spirit is concerned with is as I've outlined it above.

OkCornel:
You earlier brought this up "Someone is divinely commissioned, given specific revelation and suddenly veers of course. Yet the One who commissioned such a one will allow them to continue to preach that which is false - wihtout correcting or replacing them - potentially harming individuals and the body as a whole, not to mention causing His holy name to be blasphemed?"

And I brought up Nicolas the deacon and originator of the doctrine of the Nicolaitans as example to answer you in that regard...so how does it not speak to your poser?

Please show how it was someone sent by God with a foundational message or continuing revelation, who veered into error and was outed by individuals going direct to the Holy Spirit to enquire - and not by reference to already revealed scripture.

OkCornel:
First, I need to be clear on what you refer to ask Spirit breathed scriptures...66 books?
Also, saying the Scriptures is the first and foremost standard is tantamount to exalting the product above the source. Without the Holy Spirit, there would be no scriptures in the first place. The ultimate standard remains the Holy Spirit, who is the source and guidance into ALL TRUTH (both written and unwritten)

I have answered what I consider to be scripture. Surely you can see that you are attempting to at once use the scripture to anchor your position, whilst at the same time falsifying what the scripture says about itself?

OkCornel:
And again, you are elevating the product (scriptures) over and above the source ( Holy Spirit) as the ultimate standard. The Holy Spirit remains the ultimate standard that would guide all believers into ALL TRUTH (both written and unwritten). Unless you are implying ALL TRUTH is limited to 66 books.

It is you who is trying to introduce non-Christian notions, such as "written & unwritten" into the Christian orthodoxy. All the gospel truth as it pertains to the gospel, Jesus as the way, the truth and the life and the worship of God in spirit and truth is there.

One of the glaringly odd notions you present is the one of "ALL TRUTH", within which you nest another of "written and unwritten" truths. As I stated you have every right to your beliefs, but they are simply not Christian ones.

OkCornel:
Also, Apostle John's book of revelation was an individual claim of divine revelation so...I guess anyone who lived outside of Bible times but got a divine revelation from the Holy Spirit should be totally discarded right?

Nobody will receive a divine revelation which adds anything - or takes anything away - from the faith already delivered to the saints. Otherwise how do we contend for it, if we cannot tell for sure what it is. Not to mention the clear biblical warnings against attempting to do so.

OkCornel:
Even if both are sent from God, I will rather wait to hear from the Spirit of God before taking a stand. That is my position.

As noted why then are you not simply led into all truth directly? Plus you falsify your own fore-witnessing of both as sent and given divine revelation, if you then have to verify your own witness from the Spirit of God, with the Spirit of God.


Cheers
TV

Morning OKCornel, hope all is well. Firstly to advise I will be offline for large parts of today, more readily present later on and moreso from tomorrow. Let me attempt some response in the little time I have.

OkCornel:
^^^ I'll address your response shortly.

Cheers. Seen, will likewise reply - trying to keep things sequential.

OkCornel:
TV01, what is your understanding of the scriptures?

Scripture is the canon - the faith delivered;

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

OkCornel:
What do you refer to as the Scriptures?

The bible - and apart from a few modern-day translations, I am not too fussed about which one a person or denomination use. Perhaps a better question here would have been what is the essence of the scriptures?

To me that is the marvelous light of the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation. As long as it contains that and nothing that compromises that, no real problem.

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

OkCornel:
1 John 2 v 26-27 clearly mentioned the Spirit of God will lead a believer into ALL TRUTH. Can all TRUTH be documented?

Perhaps it would be good to define terms. Your use of the term "ALL TRUTH" appears to me all-encompassing in a way that scripture does not teach. But let me allow you to define that first ahead of commenting further.

Best
TV

Thanks again OKCornel. However, again, I still don't have a sense of my questions being directly addressed. As well as considering divine revelation claims at the level of canon, there is also a suggestion that the written canon is somehow distinct to the Holy Spirit?

2 Timothy 3:16- All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

The Holy Spirit leads us primarily into the truth of the scripture He inspired. It's illumination of the scriptures unto a revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

OkCornel:
As long as it is the Spirit of God leading a man to take decisions, rather than the soul of man leading him to make decisions...there is no cause for concern. Anyone led of the Spirit of God can never be wrong. The passage of time eventually vindicates such a person.

As I stated, individuals can adopt any position they feel led too - however or by whatever led. This does not answer how the body of Christ is supposed to verify and test claims.

There is clear scriptural direction and instruction, as well as structure and order - inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Why would we not expect the Holy Spirit to provide illumination first via the scripture He breathed?

2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit

How counter-intuitive is it to say we take all non-canonical revelations and then ask the Holy Spirit if they are true or not and, to do so as individuals, when the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures with clear guidance are with us. Is God the author of confusion or the kind disarray this will surely lead to?

OkCornel:
The answer again is this. The witness of the Spirit of God to your Spirit. Ask Him, and He will lead you to the Truth. In addition, just like the Berean Christians studied the scriptures (a product of the Spirit of God) before accepting the teachings of Paul. Do same, but obviously with the guidance of the Spirit of God, rather than the thoughts and ideologies of your soul.

I believe I have spoken to this repeatedly above

OkCornel:
The bolded is an unfortunate reality. But no genuine believer has an excuse to be misled. It simply means they are listening to the voice of men, rather than the Spirit of God. Before anything from the altar is believed, cross check with the Spirit of God for validation. Again, 1 John 2 v 26-27. If every believer sees the Spirit of God as even more important than the oxygen he or she breathes, the church which has degenerated to a mockery of the version of the church in Acts of Apostles wouldn't have degenerated this bad.

So God sends those He knows will teach error - so how do we know there is no error that has been canonised? Why can we not be told by some that parts of scripture are wrong, outdated or to be overturned, as indeed some do?

Still on the bolded, even the early church had its controversies, where one of the appointed deacons in Acts - Nicolas went on to propagate the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which Jesus warned strongly against in Revelation 2. Guess what, in Acts 6 v 4-6: the early church chose Nicolas amongst the 7, and the Apostles laid hands and prayed on them (Nicolas inclusive). I have studied the Nicolaitian heresy, however, it does not speak to my posers - and how was the heresy forestalled?

OkCornel:
I don't have an a priori assumption. The Spirit of God is my standard. If I hear nothing, sorry. I maintain a neutral stand.

First, the Spirit breathed scriptures are always the first and foremost standard for the body. Secondly, your stance on this thread has been anything but neutral, which is why I had questions for you, as you have been clear on your position, which is admirable.

OkCornel:
Refer to example of deacon Nicolas and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in the early church.

As noted, I have. I does not teach that heresy is countered by individual recourse to the Holy Spirit

OkCornel:
The Spirit of God is the source, the scriptures are the product. The Spirit of God gives you a clear answer, the scripture (if comprehensive enough) shows you the written truth to validate that. In the absence of the written truth, the passage of time will validate what the Spirit of God told you earlier. The Truth (either written or unwritten) can be witnessed and observed with the passage of time.

I have spoken to this

OkCornel:
As regards the scripture regarding test all Spirits, this is what it says;

1 John 4 v 1-3;

1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Any Spirit that does not confess Jesus came in flesh and blood, and is not from God is a lying spirit. Clearly, the OP and Kenneth Hagin aren't in that category. Unless you think otherwise. I don't know of any other scriptural reference on testing Spirits, would be glad if you could show me.

Then perhaps illumination is required. Contrast that scripture with this;

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

OkCornel:
There are obviously those called by their bellies and selfish interest. Didn't include them in my earlier illustration. The point I was passing across there was that, the Spirit of God remains THE ULTIMATE STANDARD to reveal the Truth to you.

Firstly, the ultimate standard of the Spirit of God remains the scriptures He breathed, not individual claims of divine revelation. Especially for the body as a whole and moreso for matters wholly captured in scripture.

OkCornel:
Again, the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Truth will eventually reveal the Truth to you IF YOU ASK, AND IF YOU ARE STILL (QUIET) IN SPIRIT TO LISTEN TO HIS ANSWER. It could even be possible for both men to be wrong, or have different perspectives on the matter, whilst you have a holistic 360 degree view on the matter after getting revelation from the Spirit of God...thus reconciling seeming contradictions in the first place.

So, two people, who claim divine revelation, who your spirit bears witness to, make contradictory revelatory claims (revelations which you claim are essentially canonical) there is the possibility of error? Error which the Holy Spirit will clear up given time? if the contradictions are attested to by scripture?

Cheers
TV

Thanks for your response. However I don't get a sense that my questions have been addressed.

OkCornel:
TV01, the answers to your questions lies in what the Holy Spirit bears witness to you.

And, I do not have a witness to Mr. Hagin, but that in itself does not faslify his claims. It could be my witness that is faulty/wrong. And whilst it's fine for individuals to take any position they feel "led" to - what of the body as a whole?

Afterall, your position is that his utterances as posted are a direct revelation and near canonical. How as a body do we verify any claims to calling or allegations of divine revelation?

OkCornel:
1) There are those who are truly sent, started well and went astray along the way and started preaching half-truths.

Again, there is some presumption here;

- Someone is divinely commissioned, given specific revelation and suddenly veers of course. Yet the One who commissioned such a one will allow them to continue to preach that which is false - wihtout correcting or replacing them - potentially harming individuals and the body as a whole, not to mention causing His holy name to be blasphemed?

- How in the first instance do we validate any claims to being "sent"? What man sent of God in the NT followed this trajectory?

OkCornel:
2) There are those who are truly sent, started well, and finished well.

Same here, regards my comments above. You have an a priori assumption of them being "sent"

OkCornel:
What's the difference between those two? Choosing to either obey or neglect the Spirit of God.

In a sense, it's a false dichotomy - all are sent, some miss road? Not all are sent. False prophets and the like are not those truly sent who fall into error are they?

OkCornel:
The scriptural pointer I can give you is 1 John 2 v 26-27;
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

There are abundant scriptural pointers that speak to testing, requirements for office and the like that guide the body of Christ as a whole. Is the discernment here to be solely spirit-led? Is there no recourse to scripture?

OkCornel:
TV01, if you are one with the Holy Spirit, you will clearly know within your Spirit between the two as the Spirit of God bears witness to you.

My position regards many of the prominent "MOGs" out there is that they are not sent in the first instance. You present 2 options which both assume an a priori divine calling. What of those that are outright false?

The scripture speaks mostly to falsehood of wolves than the error of sheep. I am sure I am personally in doctrinal error on some points

OkCornel:
You really want to hear my story and why this topic has been of interest to me?

Happy for you to share, but like I said, I wouldn't want this to be about personalities, but about precepts.

I had a sequence of questions I intended to ask, which has all but been derailed at the off. However, let me persevere. You have attested to OP and to Mr. Hagin. What if two people you witness too make contradictory claims?

Cheers
TV

Very insightful thread. As much for the character dynamics as the differing theological positions and doctrinal persuasions. Mostly happy to read and reason. I do have some questions though.

OKCornel, you have been prominent on this thread. I wonder if you would be so kind as to share your thoughts and clarify your position on some issues? No problem if you cannot or do not feel so inclined for any reason.

From your submissions on the thread it appears that you believe that Mr. Hagin was sent by God, heard directly from The Lord and, that the revelation he claimed to receive are to be considered as near canonical.

Could you explain how you determine that 1, he (or anyone who claims to be) was indeed sent and 2, he (or anyone who claims to have) did actually hear from The Lord direct as claimed. Are there any objective criteria, especially scriptural pointers, for determining who, in this age, has an apostolic or prophetic mandate?

OkCornel:
Did Jesus teach Hagin about Demons or not?
Connect the dots and get your answer to where Jesus revealed such. Unless your next line of argument is Jesus never revealed such to Hagin.

By way of disclosure, I personally don't "follow" or even believe Mr. Hagin. Not to say that that necessarily falsifies his claims. More pertinently, I would never guide my own walk with God by what he claims was revealed to him.

However, please note, this is not about Mr. Hagin per se, but more about the underlying principles - I would hope we did not get bogged down in discussing personalities as opposed to precepts.

Cheers
TV

OnPointMan:
Jesus is the mediator between man and God. So, he can't at the same time be God. Shikena!

Au contraire - that is exactly what He needs to be! Can a being less than God, lay hold of God? Whilst being a man makes Him perfectly equipped to understand our passions and intercede on our behalf.

Job 9:33 - Nor is there any mediator between us, Who may lay his hand on us both.

The infinite God presenting in different forms may well be hard to grasp, but it shouldn't be a problem and, we shouldn't even seek to limit Him to what has been revealed. He is not like us, unconstrained by notions of time or dimensionality. He did what we could not do, not limited by form or ego.


TV

Apologise ke? For where??

Not only do I never apologise - mainly as I'm almost never wrong, or can artfully bluff if I am - I never ask command them to do things with a please or, a thank you once done. I'd rather scold them for not executing speedily, perfectly, with all humility etc.

Na so e dey start, from apologising to asking permission. On good days they are treated like the most contemptible of military conscripts. On bad days simply herded like cattle - prod and all.

Nonsense and eye-wateringly high nursery costs

Apologise ko, repent ni. Soon you'll be talking about childrens rights...eh!


TV aka "Daadddeeee wa"

freecocoa:
Okay, I see someone missed me.

Of course na - missed you like kilode? . Along with all the other Family board peeps - as a family man with a strong pastoral inclination, why wouldn't I miss people I genuinely care about? Anyways, make I come chook mouth for your matter? Better run .

TeeVee