₦airaland Forum

AynA:
Killing of unarmed protesters ?

unarmed protesters thatt attacked and killed police abi?

Sarassin:
No sir, no dodging here, Paul is very clear in Gal 1:18-19 "........I saw none of the other apostles, only James, the Lord's brother"
Paul's statement is clear, concise and not open to misinterpretation.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:18-19).



Notice, the James of whom St. Paul speaks was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are only two apostles named James among the twelve. The first James is revealed to have been a son of Zebedee. He would most likely not be the
James St. Paul speaks of in Galatians, because this James, the brother of John, was martyred early on, according to Acts 12:1-2. And even if it were him, his father was Zebedee. If he were the blood brother of the Lord, his father would have been Joseph. The second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16, is most likely to whom St. Paul refers, and his father was Alphaeus, not Joseph.
Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not blood brothers.

otipoju:
Okay.. what is the greek word and its meaning ?
Let me listen to your theory.

In the New American Bible's English translation of
the Gospel of St. Mark we do indeed read about thecrowd asking, "Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Aren't His sisters our neighbors here?" (Mk
6:3) A similar reference occurs earlier in Mk 3:31 —"His mother and brothers arrived...." The problem emerges in understanding the
meaning of the word brother. In the original text of the Gospel, we find the Greek word <adelphos,> meaning brother, used. However, <adelphos> does
not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, <adelphos> was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a halfbrother or stepbrother. The word also described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc. For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:1416, the word <adelphos> was used to describe the relationship
between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an <adelphos> to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle. (In the New American
translation, "kinsman" or "relative" will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the Gospel.)
The same is true for the word sister. Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and
Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, "the son of the brother of my father." When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word <adelphos> was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek <adelphos> to signify all of these relations. Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these
relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20). The Gospels are also very clear that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38).
Remember when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary God's plan, she responded, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" After the birth of our Lord, although the Gospels do
not give us many details of His childhood, no
mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the "sons of Mary" or "a son of Mary," but only the son of Mary. This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, "Woman, there is your son," and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, "There is your mother." According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no "blood brother," He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

luckyCO:
Firstly I want say that Mary was not ark of convenant it was Jesus. If it were to be mary she wouldnt hv to be at the upper with others for Holy Ghost.
Heb 10:5,deutonony 18:18.
God prepared that body inside the womb of mary. The carrier of God is the Jesus,that is why He has to give up that body for us to be allowed to recieve Gods spirit.
"Except a wheat fall down and die it remaineth a single seed"
Devil is just planning evil with end time mary and people dont know.

Jesus is God not a carrier of God. The ark contained d rod of aaron d high priest, manna, and d commandment, Jesus is the new high priest, the new bread from heaven and the wword of God and maryy carried him

Mary mother of Christ can never claim any of what the poster post because she has Holy Ghost and know God who created her.
She humbled herself before God. Anybody who recieve Holy Ghost has conceived Jesus waiting to redemption to deliver him.

Jews fulfiled natural while we(gentiles) are fullfilling the spiritual until gospel goes back again to Isreal since many didnt believe that Jesus was the messiah.

That is why Jesus didnt marry such to give birth to spiritual children.
So calling mary mother of God is a name taken far beyond please not mother of Christ. Since devil wants equality with God,now its not only equality but he was the one that gave birth to God. You can see the level of deciet there.
God bless you.

another rant, i am steering cclear.

dolphinheart:
an expectation that was supported with facts that it really happened, Mary could not have had other children without having sex with her husband , or could she?

nowhere does tthe bible say mary had other children

I wonder why you guys are Tryin all this illogical assumptions just to elevate Mary above who she is, the scriptures is awash with the role women played in Gods organization, and I've not seen a divinely approved authority driven position given to women. even before Jesus was born, all divine revelations as to jesus welfare was passed through Joseph, like a good isrealites wife, she obeyed.

this is a classic protestant rant that doesnt address the topic, i will sssteer clear of themm hroughout d discussion

even Mary that you are painting to be squicky clean remaimed unclean for 40 days after birth. has God ever dwelled in places he considered unclean?

that is ceremonial uncleaniness not sin..
Moses said anyone that touch blood is unclean, a woman on menses wwas unclean to moses, a woman giving birth was also ceremonially unclean, do you consider such d case today? Do u think the birth o christ is an unclean even?

Sarassin:
This your argument is far too esoteric for me. In the first instance I don't believe in an immaculate conception, I believe it is pious fraud. I accept that others believe it. For me the doctrine of "perpetual virginity" of Mary on whimsical notions stretches the boundaries of credulity.

how so?

Do you know a pius jew is forbidden from having relations from his wife who has a child that isnt his?? Actually it is more credible to believe marys perpetual virginity than the offspring story. It beccomes more interesting when no bible passage clearly support the offspring idea and the early church absolutely rejected it as an innovation d moment it was first propounded.

elampiro:
Not gone far. But I am impressed with the amount of effort put in. Imagine they spent ten years to arrive at that.

after all the yrs of study they ended up telling u wwhat we already know-we need more clarificcations.

the last time i heard such a delay was in benin city when ekpu was arch bishop i think that on was less that 5yrs but 19 and 15yrs is very long and maybe even discouraging esp when these issues are usually caused by just one bad letter! Anyway i thank God with them and hail their perseverance, e no easy at all, may God grant them many useful yrs in his service

wowwwoowwwow

PastorAIO:
This parable though …


"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, 'Son, go work in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, 'I go, sir,' but he didn't go. Which of the two did the will of his father?"

They said to him, "The first."
Matt 21

yeah that parable, it didntt sayy the child didnt do wrong, it simply admitted he did right at the end.

i think its comparing apples and oranges.

AMP) [b]“Now if the dispensation of death
engraved in letters on stone [the ministration
of the Law],[/b]was inaugurated with such
glory and splendor that the Israelites were not able to look steadily at the face of Moses
because of its brilliance, [a glory] that was to fade and pass away.”

My question is, what is the ministry of death in the passage above, what is the law carved on stone? Is that not the 10 commandment?


Cc blueagent syncan

PastorAIO:
… Or one can perch delicately on the precipice, merely contemplating the thought and enjoying the contemplation. Fantasising can be so sweet.

In fact most pleasures and pains in life are rooted in conceits. We live in fear of things that haven't happened and possibly will never happen and we delight in things that haven't happened and also will possibly never happen. This fact has many economic implications.

Hope itself is a commodity. We can put a price on hope and buy and sell it. We can do this for pretty much any of our conceits because we experience them as if they were real.

it is not a good placce to perch, esp for d 6 commandment.

Geist:
It's not just discouraged, it's called a sin. And when one considers Mathew 5:28, the implications for Catholics is that it's in fact a motal sin.

exactly, i was just imprecise

Geist:
I too have always asked this question during my years in catechism, especially when it has to do with fornicating. The general explanations I got was that, sin generally involves three stages. The thoughts, the resolve to carry out the thoughts, and the action, that sin only comes in after the second stage, regardless of whether the actions are eventually taken. I personally am not satisfied with that explanation though, knowing fully well that even after resolving to carry out such acts one can still change his mind.

once the resolve stage kicks in there is sin, even though u change ur mind later. But in issues like the 6 commandment even d first stage may be sinful.

elampiro:
Thanks, I will study it.

hw is d study going?

simplex2:
Or it shows I'd rather watch paint dry than engage you in your crappy-bible twisting charade.

so this is ur classic wway of saying u cant rebut me.

Wweldone thank u.

Sarassin:
No sir, no dodging here, Paul is very clear in Gal 1:18-19 "........I saw none of the other apostles, only James, the Lord's brother"
Paul's statement is clear, concise and not open to misinterpretation.

what is the word used for brother and what is the range of its meaning in greek?

Sarassin:
In the same vein you cannot demonstrate that Mary did not in fact give birth to other children apart from Jesus. But Matthew 1:25 indicates that Joseph had intimate relations with his wife Mary after the birth of Jesus, therefore the issue of Mary being a perpetual virgin living in lonely orgasmic splendour is spurious at best and misleading at worst. On a balance of probabilities it is more likely than not that Mary, as would have been expected of her, particularly amidst claims of a prior immaculate conception would have borne other children too.

The bible in quite a few cases does make distinctions for familial clarification, for instance Genesis 37:2 is a clear reference to Joseph and his half-brothers distinguished by the mention of the names of of Jacob's other wives. There is not the merest of hints that Joseph, father of Jesus had another wife or children prior to the birth of Jesus. Also you seem to hang your gripe on the use of the word “brother” would you then say that the "Zebedee Brothers" were not full blood siblings because the term "brother" has had other usage? generalisations do not always apply in every instance.

The implications of Mary being a perpetual virgin, meaning that Joseph died without a blood child is of huge significance largely ignored by Catholics. This is just a clear case of Catholics reverse-engineering biblical events to fit ill-conceived dogma.

actually mathew doesnt indicate anything of the sort.

dolphinheart:
the scriptures says jesus did not know Mary until she gave birth to jesus, after that , it would be expected of JosEph to fufill his husbandLy dues. He has the backing of gods law guiding marriage, of gods law guiding pro- creation, of the Mosaic Law and the teachings of the apostles, he had broken no law if he sleeps with HIS WIFE!

'it would be expected' that is an assumption.

OlaoChi:
you are leaving out vital information sir

you didn't mention that ogiso Owodo was banished, he didn't die on the throne his family member Evian was appointed to rule Bini (although without the title Ogiso but simply Ogie), he held firmly to power that he wanted his son to take after him at his dying moment but the Edionisen (now Uzama chiefs) rejected his son and went to Ife to seek guidance. .. Oranmiyan was that guidance but the fact that despite the support of the Edionisen Oranmiyan couldn't rule Bini as Ogiso means that the Ogiso dynasty was already dead


if Oranmiyan was a descendant of Owodo he could have taken the title "Ogiso"

not necessarily. Oramiyyan was born in ife, his idea of rulership will be that of ife, he wwill have little appreciation for the ogiso system and even less appreciation for a mere title, especiallyy as the ogiamien locked him out of the city. His inability to adapt to his new realitties wwas what made him run away.

infact Oranmiyan was less than Ogiamien, because the later controlled Bini. Oranmiyan had to build Usama as his capital with the Edionisen who never treated him like a king, they struggled power with him and his descendants until Oba Ewedo(Great grandson of Oranmiyan), all this made him leave Bini in anger.
meanwhile the main city was still striving with the major population behind Ogiamien
this is similar to the case of Ewuare and Uwaifiokun, Ewuare was the rightful king but the Edionisen supported His Junior brother and made the junior king, if not that Ewuare was stubborn enough to fight till the end

pls who told you the major population wwas behind d ogiamien? The population was in the ccity because that is where they have always lived that is where they have heir homes, where they work etc. The ogiamen simply took posession of d aparatus of govenance as administrator, evian was also a local hero and with d military behind him he could keep oramiyan out for as long as he like. But the will of the people won at the end, the people rallied round eweka and joined in fighting d ogiamien hence he took a treaty and retired to a small village.

so the hostile attitude against Ogiamien might not be because he wasn't the rightful king but just that the Edionisen didn't like him.

if ogiemien isn't the rightful king why does Oba need to rent land from him? this rent Oba Ewedo did despite defeating his army, in a battle to enter the main city, if Ogiamien was ever under the Oba the position should have been abolished by the Oba knowing that two kings cannot reign in one kingdom. Today Ogiamien is a king in his own right and grand landlord of Benin kingdom similar to Lagos where Aromire who is the landlord of the land oba of Lagos rules as king

not true. Eweka defeated d ogiamien in battle but the war didnt end, it was going to become a long civil war with guerilla tactic anyybody could see it wasnt helping anyone, the only result will be huge lose of lives, it wwas the edionisen who decided the best way to checkmate a civil war was a form a treaty. ogiamien ofcuz claimed evian could confer kingship and so claim benin belongs to him, but the reality wwas tthat his supporters were few as people didnt recognise him as d true ruler he ccouldnt keep benin butt he had to save his pride hence d terms of the truce. Because he claims his father confers kingship on him then he must compulsorily ceed the land to each successive king for a palstry sum, he cant change the sum or renogotiate it, that way is pride remains and the war ends. in reality he was onlyy an adminirator neverd owner.

The reason he has a land to control is bcause evian was a ruler, he was an ogie even before he was an administrator just like d ogie of eghor, so after the treaty and war he returned back to hisas kem now called utantan.

JMAN05:
You ve not shown me the scripture that calls her the ark of God. If this is what you reached cos you view him God's baby mama, then that is your word, not God's.

how would you describe the various parallels that one can find between mary and d old ark, d old ark contained stone tablets of d law, mary carried the very word of God, the law giver, the fulfilment and end of the law, d ark was overshadowed by the presence of God so was mary....etc

I still wonder how you came about the baby mama. Jesus has been existing in heaven before coming to earth. In heaven he has been God's son. God never impregnated anybody to give birth to Jesus. I tot you call Jesus ur God, was ur your God given birth to? meaning he has a beginning? If you agree that the birth is here on earth, you will agree that Jesus had been God's son in heaven even before coming to earth. Who now gave birth to him in heaven?

It is Joseph who could say Mary is the mother of my baby ie the foster father of Jesus. God had for long had him as a son in heaven.

The baby mama is simple logic. The Word existed in heaven from the begining but he wasnt a human being he was spirit! For him to be fully human he had to be born and take flesh. A woman gave birth to him on earth after 9 months. God who is in heaven cccame as man stayed 9 months inside a woman and was born that woman gave birth to God thru the power of God that overshadowed her.that is both mother of GOD and God babyy mama.

2. Jeremiah 3:14[ASV] says Jehovah is the husband of Israel. KJV says that God is married unto them. Did this prevent them from marrying? Remember that Israel is a dedicated nation to God. A holy nation.

The spiritual Israelites, the true Christians are Jesus' bride. 2cor 11:2. does this mean they wont marry?

Of course if you pollute yourself with idols, that is wrong as 2Cor. 6:16 says, but in the previous letter to this same congregation, Paul exhorted some who wish to; to marry. 1cor 7:36. He says that that is not a sin. It is never defiling to marry. In fact in verse 3 of that chapter 7, Paul stated that couples should give the marital due. Do you think this would defile there marriage to christ when they do it?

True Christians are a holy nation (1pet 2:9), yet they marry. Do not view something as defiled when God never did so. God never viewed marital sex as a defiling practice. It will be wrong to view Joseph as defiling Mary's holiness by sleeping with her. After all, both Mary and Joseph are among the holy people of Israel. A nation whose law never banned sex for married couples. Sex for them was not a defilement.

Joseph wouldnt be unrighteous if he slept with his wife.

your analogyy doesnt work did isreal concieve a human who is GOD? Do u know any christian who conceived and bore God? There is just one mary, she alone did GOd set apart to bear Jesus, and Joseph a jew was informed of this, do you think a jew will be so stupid as to use something dedicated to God for his gratificattion?

PastorAIO:
The Nature of Temptation.



When I get tempted, I mull over the tempting act. I go through it in my mind, imagining myself doing it. Vicariously, I contemplate the pleasure of doing the act. Then I might resist the temptation and refuse to actually carry out the act.

This is my experience of temptation.

When I see a beautiful woman with nice gravity defying mammaries, a gluteus maximus to die for and curves and dips that tingle my imagination, already I've imagined all manner of lascivious actions. Hardly can a sexy girl pass by and I will not be thus tingled.

However I consider myself a disciplined man and I do not hardly ever follow through with these thoughts.

it is quite disconcerting to realise that Matthew 5:28 considers the contents of my imagination to be as sinful as my actions.

27You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


This leaves me wondering about what the nature of Jesus' temptations were. Did Jesus too mull over the opportunities that the Satan was offering him?

If he did then was he guilty of sin by contemplation.?
And if he did not even once consider the Satan's offer then can it be called temptation.

Of course Satan is a separate being from Jesus so the tempting suggestions are externalised to him. However the rest of us humans are not so lucky. When we are tempted the temptations occur as thoughts in our own heads. If they were externalised as another person saying, 'olboy, look that yansh', it would be much easier to escape.

So the temptations of Christ and the temptations that we go through everyday are of a totally different nature. Can they even be said to be the same thing?

Now consider this:

12Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
James chapter 1

So if Jesus is God and God cannot be tempted then what can we say happened to Jesus in the wilderness? I believe that James is right when he says that temptation starts with your own desire. At least that is my experience.
So what is the nature of what happened to Jesus in the wilderness?

i think the thinking part is discouraged particularly for the six commandment

[quote author=PastorAIO post=46081732][/quote]hmm

PastorAIO:
No, he certainly wasn't talking scientific fact. But my question is: Was he talking historical fact?

possibly, unless the whole sttory is alegorical. Again whether or not the earth did stand stil isnt his intended message.

PastorAIO:
I think it might help if we define what we mean by truth.

I believe in logic that truth is just a value that is assigned to a statement. So any statement e.g. "London is in England" can be assigned one of two values, True or False.

For me personally, I like to define Truth as That Which Is And Always Is The Case.

With this definition I am not just referring to statements but to the entirety of experience. The world that we perceive with our senses is not the Truth because everything in it is subject to change. Things might seem to be the case one instance and cease to be the case the next instant. Ultimately, by my definition, Truth can only exist in eternity, but in this world of our senses we see derivations of truth.

I'm asking for your definition because of your use of the phrase 'absolute truth'. Absolute truth as distinct from what? Relative Truth? I suspect that you do not believe that there is any such thing as relative truth (being a catholic).

now that is a scary definition, while i may agree to an extent that truth on earth is sometimes coloured, i disagree it is an imposibility, my complexion is dark is true, everytime white light is disperssed my skin will alwways absorbs the dark rays and m complexion is certainly dark to anyone wwith good eyes. Even on earth there is truth in the general sense. Here is absolute truth, atleast i believe there is, for me the existence of God is absolutely true, it is true for all times unto eternity, there is objective truth, my complexion is an example, then the is relative truth, that one is up to each individual, like human beauty. The catholic church isnt anti relative truth, but most doctrine arent in the relattive box.

On the otherhand i doubt i can fully define truth.

Syncan:
Hahahaha, you go look for one line answer tire.

the tin tire me, na simple question. Bible sayys there iss a ministry of death carved in sstone and given to moses, i asked blueagent what is tthat ministtry of death? Instead of telling me tthat he iss busy comparing many versions that all agree tthat a ministry of death carved in stone was given to moses, and now he is agruing about the glory in moses face.

That doesssnt concern me, my question is simple, what is d ministry of death carved in stone and given to moses.


Blueagent will continue to dodge that question for ever and ever just because he is anti telling the truth and cannot say plainly that the law is the ministry of death.

blueAgent:
Continue fooling yourself and end in Hellfire.
Since you know you have no arguement you just keeping overlooking the facts.

Bible translation have Shown that it was not what was written on the stone that was done away with. but the glory on the face of Moses. I was not the one who translated those Bible verses. You can google them or get any bible which is not KJV . for you to understand the verse properly. what is their U don't understand?

Going to Heaven is not about religeon but what the Word of God Says. its not about what the whole world believes.

The entire Christedom have been corrupted with Bible verses misinterpreted.

I urge you to do research on your Church their believes and how it contradicts Bible verses.

i didnt asked about the gloryy in the face of moses, the bible talked about a ministryy of death carved in stones given to moses, your amp version sayssss it isss the law, so tell me which law was carved on ssstones and given to moses?

blueAgent:
I posted other translations of that Bible verse to show you that . you miss understand the verse using King James Version. wat else do you want me to explain. Here is the verse. and their translation.

This is the full explanation of your Bible verse.
The ministration of death [the Ten
Commandments points out sin; Romans 7:7, and
sin points to death; Romans 6:23] on stone was.Glorious and was NOT to be done away. It was the glory on the face of Moses that was done away.



The King James Version is a little unclear in its
translation on this point. Observe just a few of
many translations below which are clearer.

AMP) [b]“Now if the dispensation of death engraved in letters on stone [the ministration of the Law],[/b]was inaugurated with such glory and splendor that the Israelites were not able to look steadily at the face of Moses because of its brilliance, [a glory] that was to fade and pass away.”


(ASV) “But if the ministration of death, written,
and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly
upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away.”


(NASB) []“But if the ministry of death, in letters
engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was.”

(NIV) “Now if the ministry that brought death,
which was engraved in letters on stone, came
with glory, so that the Israelites could not look
steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was.”



(RSV) “Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses' face because of its brightness, fading as this was.”




Moses was the minister of the Old Covenant.
He gave the people God's instructions on how to keep the Ten Commandments law [detailed
requirements on what to do] and what to do when it was broken [Priests and Sacrifices]. This glorious system of ministration was done away with, not the Ten Commandments. Christ
ministers the New Covenant.

let me ask u in a different way Do u agree witth ttthe AMp version above that the ministtry of deatth is the law given to moses carved in stone?

blueAgent:
Irony of your statement is you are reffering to yourself.

You are unlearned and refuse to see anything against your narrative.even with facts you still argue blindly.

How can you say Jesus did away with ten commandments .when the same Jesus said he has not come to do that. and even told us to teach and obey the law.

Now using your discretion , as i said before. which of the laws is Jesus reffering to. that we should keep and obey it?

what iss the ministry of death carved in stone?

PastorAIO:
If the bible is a public revelation as you put it would you say that one must believe that the Sun stood still as told in Joshua 10:13 or lose happily thereafter in heaven?

what is the intended message? Joshua wasnt talking scientific fact, he was telling a story with a message. Remember how i desscribed inerrancyy.

cbrass:
So who gave birth to Eweka

EWEKa is d son of oranmiyan and a eghor lady, oramiyan is d grandson or son of oduduwa(depending on d version u read) who d binis believe is a son of ogiso owodo.


In sumary, ogiso owodo begat prince elekaderan aka izoduwa aka oduduwa, (who begat okanbi as only son according to a yoruba version) who begat oranmiyan (who became king in bini even though he didnt live in d town, 1st alafin of oyo and later ooni of ife), who begat eweka.

otipoju:
OGBENI,if you do not know something try and keep quiet. Mary had other children. Jesus was told that his mother , brother and sisters wanted to see him ...while he used that instance to teach that brotherhood goes beyond blood ties. He acknowledged the FACT that they were his siblings.

Dont be clever by half. .

DO U KNOW THE GREEK WORD USED IN DAT PASSAGE AND ITS RANGE OF MEANING?

IF u did u wouldnt conclude that it means mary had other kids.