₦airaland Forum

those who are thinking Melchizedek is Jesus are in error. they should get their fact right.

qstar: bla blah blah

that's d truth

we must collectively come together to fight corruption.

WE are celebrating another independence day, the
same ritual; razzmatazz and demonstrations.
Speeches. Promises and promises, all of the
same, so much motion but no movement.
Fela calls it “perambulating and still remaining on
the same spot”. We have seen it all, as it was in
the beginning- 1960, so it is now, nothing has
changed. Will Nigeria and Nigerians ever change?
That is the big question.
I was reading through Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s
book Travails of Democracy book two, recently;
as I made progress from one page to another, my
body shivered, it was as if he was addressing
today’s Nigeria. The voice of the opposition, then
Action group, can be likened to today’s APC, no
difference in language and temperament. The
NPC/NCNC coalition is like PDP of today;
powerful, not too loud but quietly strangulating
the opposition.
It was a battle of northern feudalism versus the
south’s free enterprise and adult suffrage. It was
a classical match at the eve of our independence
and the referee was our colonial master, Britain.
Same is happening today as our politicians have
started appearing at the British parliament to
plead their cause.
The independence of 1960 offered a great hope,
but, the hope was short lived and finally cut short
by a weak foundation, that was programmed to
fail ab initio, coupled with the activities of our
gullible politicians.
The foundations of Nigeria were built on
corruption and manipulations. No structure can
survive under a weak foundation, we have
witnessed so many collapsed buildings, including
the recent one at the Synagogue church of all
nations. What are the requirements for a solid
building foundation? We have: cement, sand,
gravel, iron rods and water. A combination of the
right quantity and quality of these items will give
a sound foundation for any building; the higher
and bigger the structure, the more materials that
will be required. There is no short cut to it.
Taking this analogy further to the nation state,
the raw materials needed for a nation state to
thrive are; willingness of the various interest
groups to live together as one, truth- in the form
of accurate statistics and census, visionary and
purposeful leadership. All of these ingredients for
a correct democratic foundations were lacking, at
the inception of this country’s independence in
1960. In fact, it dates back to 1914, the year of
the amalgamation of the north and south. They
were lacking then and they are lacking now.
Let us not deceive ourselves, unless these
foundations are put right, nothing will work right
in this country; we can adjust, manipulate, cajole
or threaten, use propaganda and even, go to war,
the problems will never be solved; a sandy
foundation will never last. The Nigerian state
foundation was built on corruption and, until we
go back to the basics to correct this, our
situation will remain the same.
The different nations in the amalgamated Nigeria
were never, really, fully integrated. It was a
merger that was directed by the fiat of the British
authorities, all they were interested in was how it
benefit the cause of Great Britain.
The system of administration was even different
for the north and southern regions. Culturally, the
people are different; while the south are more
agitative as a result of their western education
exposure and republicanism, the north is more
subdued because of their feudal tendencies. The
British found it more to their interest to favour the
passive north against the restive south.
Therefore, every decision taken in respect of the
Nigerian nation, was skewed against the south. It
was a conspiracy of the British and the northern
ruling class against the south. The geographical
mappings were skewed in favour of the north,
census were conducted to favour a section of the
country against the other. That was the
foundation for distrust between the north and the
south till date.
That was the beginning of ethnic/religious rivalry
and that was the basis for our inability to handle
the monster of corruption, as everyone shouts: ”
you want to bring down my brother”.
The damage that tribalism has done to this
country can never be quantified.It has encouraged
wastages; projects of all types and industries are
sited, based on ethnic considerations, without the
viability factor. Therefore, there are so many
abandoned projects all over the country. Merit
does not count in appointments to positions,
even, up to the highest levels; the people in public
office today, in all cadres, are not the best that
the country has to offer, but, because of such
factors, mediocrity is enthroned.
Why, for instance, can’t the presidency be open to
all and sundry, irrespective of tribe and
geographic location? When you place mediocres
in position of leadership, you receive mediocre
rewards. Unfortunately, those angling to take over
power do not fare better. Where are the
detribalised Nigerians? Do we have them? Men
who will be ready to lead Nigeria as a whole,
instead of for self and tribal interests, that will be
the day.
The Scottish people have just voted to remain in
the United kingdom, in a transparent poll, can our
leadership afford the various ethnic groups, the
opportunity to decide how they want to be
governed? There are so many ethnic groups that
are been suppressed in this country, for example;
we never knew that there are predominantly
Christian towns in the north, until the Chibok
incident occurred.
Are we ready to allow these small ethnic groups
have their say? Democracy favours the majority,
but, all ethnic groups must be recognised. Until
all ethnic groups are giving a sense of belonging
in the affairs of this country, we shall only be
pretending to be a nation state. It is not too late
to conduct a referendum the Scottish way.
Tribalism is evil. It is at the heart of our inability
to tackle corruption decisively in this country. Let
the people’s voices be heard.

"19 Which hope we have as an
anchor of the soul, both sure
and stedfast, and which entereth
into that within the veil;
20 whither the forerunner is for
us entered, even Jesus, made
an high priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek. "
( Heb 6:19-20

In the next passage, in verse 3 we see
that Melchizedek was made like unto the
Son of God. If he was made like unto Jesus,
it is because he was not Jesus. It is out of
logic that you and a friend stand before
your son and instead of telling your
friend: "Look, this is my son" you tell
him: "Look, this is like unto my son".

"1 For this Melchizedek, king of
Salem, priest of the Most
High God, who met Abraham
returning from the slaughter
of the kings, and blessed him; 2 to
whom also Abraham gave a
tenth part of all; first being by
interpretation King of
righteousness, and after that also
King of Salem, which is,
King of peace; 3 without father,
without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days,
nor end of life; but made like
unto the Son of God; abideth a
priest continually ."
( Heb 7:1-3

What Paul is saying in verse 3 is that
Melchizedek, who abruptly came and
abruptly disappeared from history, made
a good symbol of Christ. Melchizedek had
flesh as we have seen, so, he was a
human being. Therefore, Paul is not
trying to tell us that Melchizedek did not
have a father, mother, children, birth
day and a death day; he is not trying to
tell us this, because all human beings
have these things. What he is saying is
that because the data was not recorded, he
made a good symbol of the priesthood of
Jesus. The fact that the sacrificed lambs
were a symbol of Christ, does not mean
that the lamb and Jesus were the same
being. Same with Melchizedek.
For God's purposes it was only needed
that Melchizedek appear, get the tithes
from Abraham and disappear. That is
why no other data of his life is
registered. It does not mean that the data
did not exist, it means that it was not
necessary to register it.
We must also note that in verse 6 of
the next passage, referring to
Melchizedek, it says that his descent,
genealogy, or lineage, was not counted.
Therefore, he had a genealogy , it was just
not counted so that he could be similar
to Jesus. If Melchizedek was Jesus it would
have said that he had no genealogy, instead
of saying that it was not counted.

"4 Now consider how great this
man was, unto whom even
the patriarch Abraham gave the
tenth of the spoils. 5 And
verily they that are of the sons of
Levi, who receive the
office of the priesthood, have a
commandment to take tithes
of the people according to the law,
that is, of their brethren,
though they come out of the loins
of Abraham: 6 But he
whose descent is not counted from
them received tithes
of Abraham, and blessed him that
had the promises ."
( Heb 7: 4 - 6 )


In verse 11 of the passage we are
studying we see a reaffirmation that
Jesus became priest after Melchizedek
did. In using the word "another" ,
referring to Jesus, it is evident that
Christ's priesthood was posterior to
Melchizedek's priesthood. Therefore they
cannot be the same person.

"If therefore perfection were by
the Levitical priesthood,
for under it the people received
the law, what further need
was there that another priest
should rise after the order of
Melchizedek , and not be called after
the order of Aaron?”
( Heb 7:11


This same idea we acquire from verse
15. There it says that another priest
would arise after the similitude of
Melchizedek. If one is the similitude of
the other, they are not the same person.
Besides, it is evident that if it says
"another" is because there was a different
one before. Let us see.


"14 For it is evident that our
Lord sprang out of Juda; of
which tribe Moses spake nothing
concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident,
for that after the similitude
of Melchizedek there ariseth
another priest, 16 who is made,
not after the law of a carnal, but
after the power of an
endless life. 17 For he testifieth,
Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of
Melchizedek ." ( Heb 7: 14-17 )


Something else to notice is that if
Melchizedek was Jesus, then in the New
Testament he would not be called
Melchizedek, because by that time they
knew that his name was Jesus or at least
he would be identified clearly with Jesus

many people erroneously believed that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ and that Jesus collected tithe through Melchizedek. but that is not true. it is a big lie.

Melchizedek could not be Christ


When a person presents a hypothesis,
or affirms something that is not evident,
to another person, it is not the second
one who has to prove it false. Rather the
person who presented the hypothesis has
the obligation to demonstrate that what
he said is true.
The fact that no one can demonstrate
other person's hypothesis or affirmation as
false, is not a proof that it is true. I can say
that yesterday night I went to the moon,
and came back this morning; and
nobody can demonstrate that this is
false. It is I who has to demonstrate that
what I said is true. I also could say that
my donkey knows how to fly, but he does
not like to fly in the sight of other
people. Of course, nobody believes that,
but nobody can demonstrate that this is
false. Really nobody has to demonstrate
that this is false; it is I who has to prove
that it is true.
The same criterion must be applied to
biblical hypotheses or affirmations that
are not evident by merely reading the Bible .
It is not I who has to demonstrate that it
is false; it is he who presents such a
hypothesis or affirmation, the one who
has to prove it is true.

I don't know the bases of those who
affirm that Melchizedek was Christ. I
should not have to be the one to prove it
false; but instead, he who believes it,
should prove it right. Nevertheless, I will
demonstrate that Jesus was not
Melchizedek. If someone sees a mistake in
what I say, or if someone can
demonstrate that Melchizedek is Jesus,
please share that knowledge with me
because I love to find the truth.
In the Bible there are only five
passages that speak of Melchizedek, these
are: Gen 14: 18-20; Sal 110: 1-7; Heb 5:
5-11; Heb 6: 19-20; and Heb 7: 1-28.

From none of these passages can you
derive that Jesus was Melchizedek. Let us
see.

"18 And Melchizedek king of
Salem brought forth bread and
wine: and he was the priest of the
Most High God. 19 And he
blessed him, and said: Blessed be
Abram of the Most High God,
possessor of heaven and earth; 20
and blessed be the Most High
God, which hath delivered thine
enemies into thy hand. And he
gave him tithes of
all ." ( Gen 14:
18-20 )

In the passage we have just read we
see nothing that can be construed as
saying that Jesus is Melchizedek. Just
because he was a priest of God does not
mean that he was Christ. There were
many priests of God who were not
Christ. On the contrary, it says that at
that time Melchizedek already was a priest,
while Jesus became a priest after the
crucifixion.
In the moment that Melchizedek
appears, Jesus still was not a priest. We
know this because it is in a psalm of David
that for the first time a prophecy tells us
that the Messiah was to become a priest. In
psalm 110 we see that the Messiah was
going to be appointed priest after the
order of Melchizedek. Therefore, it
means that Melchizedek was priest
before Jesus was. Therefore, they cannot
be the same person.

"1 A Psalm of David. The LORD
said unto my Lord: Sit thou
at my right hand, until I make
thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of
thy strength out of Zion;
rule thou in the midst of thine
enemies. 3 Thy people shall be
willing in the day of thy power, in
the beauties of holiness
from the womb of the morning;
thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will
not repent, Thou art a
priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek . 5 The Lord at thy
right hand shall strike through
kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the
heathen, He shall fill the places
with the dead bodies; He shall
wound the heads over many
countries. 7 He shall drink of the
brook in the way: therefore
shall he lift up the head ."
( Ps 110: 1-7 )

As is obvious in the former passage
there is nothing to prove, or at least to
hint, that Melchizedek was Jesus. Instead
we find data that lets us know that
Melchizedek was a priest before Jesus
was. If I say: " 'B' is going to be priest just
as 'A' was", logically, "A" acceded to
priesthood before "B" . Therefore, if
Melchizedek was a priest before Jesus
was, they are not the same person.
Now, an argument of utmost
importance. The only time Jesus was in
flesh was when he was born from Virgin
Mary. In the following passage we will
see that Melchizedek had flesh, therefore,
he was a human being. If Melchizedek
had flesh before Jesus was born, evidently
he could not be Jesus.

"5 So also Christ glorified not
himself to be made an high
priest; but he that said unto him,
Thou art my Son, today
have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith
also in another place:
Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek. 7 Who
in the days of his flesh, when he
had offered up prayers and
supplications with strong crying
and tears unto him that was
able to save him from death, and
was heard in that he feared.
8 Though he were a Son, yet
learned he obedience by the things
which he suffered; 9 and being
made perfect, he became the
author of eternal salvation unto
all them that obey him; 10 called
of God an high priest after the
order of Melchizedek. 11 Of
whom we have many things to say,
and hard to be uttered, seeing
ye are dull of
hearing ." ( Heb 5:5-11)

Neither in the former passage nor in
the next passage can we find the smallest
hint that makes us suspect that Jesus and
Melchizedek are the same person. On the
contrary, in the next passage we find
again that Melchizedek was a priest
when Jesus was not.
"19 Which hope we have as an
anchor of the soul, both sure
and stedfast, and which entereth
into that within the veil;
20 whither the forerunner is for
us entered, even Jesus, made
an high priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek. "

qstar: But, somehow, resurrection is possible...

have u nt seen someone raised back to life before?

JesusisLord85: THINK about it for a second. Have that conversation in your head:

Another one:

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

Matthew 11:13-15
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

did Elijah died?

JesusisLord85: John 9:1-3
1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

hw does this relate to the subject? u just quote scripture for quoting sake?

people using d niv bible are using incomplete bible.

ifeness: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. According to science we contain energy. Therefore,there is a possibility that the energy propelling the human body will always exist.

even when there is no life in d human body.

well, i dnt really believe those crap. reincarnation is impossible

Apatheist: Reincarnation is not a scientific phenomenon.
About reincarnation in Buddhism:
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)
From Buddhist site:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm&sa=U&ei=sG0pVNHlLo_bapiBgdAC&ved=0CAsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFek9WTQqekfMXKNX7zWF3sXfEFTQ

i thought d atheist only work with reasoning and logic. it means that they still believed in the spirit realm. how can reincarnation be proved experimentally?

it is a nice move. such nonsense is mostly common among the Muslim.

Mendo007: yes. 6 to 12 maximum

very funny. is it not children that does that?

Apatheist: None.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

why did they believed in reincarnation then. is it a scientific phenomenon or connected to some spiritual beings?

does science support reincarnation?

Apatheist: Some do.
Technically, Buddhists are atheists-- their religion doesn't have any god(s).
But they believe in reincarnation.

dnt d Buddhists believed in a certain God?

reincarnation is false from the bible view. but what is the atheist view on the subject?

Mendo007: my dear I have never missed church service not even once 4 d past 7yrs. I don't joke wit my God but 4 fasting...hmm.....no comment

so u have never fasted before?

Mendo007: Elijah was a prophet n I'm just a hustling guy

dnt u go to church?

Ukutsgp: A Distorted View of Marriage
Something I want to point out here is that the
Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity
leads to a distorted view of sex in marriage.
Catholics maintain—without any biblical evidence
—that Mary herself was immaculately conceived
and remained without sin all her life. The idea
that she never had sex is a part of this doctrine.
However, the Bible shows that this view backfires
on itself. While sex outside of marriage is a sin,
within marriage, sexual relations are clearly
sanctified (Hebrews 13:4). Yet, the doctrine of
Mary's perpetual virginity intimates that sexual
intercourse with her husband would somehow
have defiled her, and that she is to be revered
because she remained a virgin. This makes a
mockery of God's institution of marriage. The sin
would have been in Mary's remaining a virgin (1
Corinthians 7:3-5).
By the way, the Bible never so much as hints at
other Catholic doctrines that Mary was born from
an immaculate conception, that she was sinless
at birth, or that she remained sinless. The Bible
tells us, "For all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The only one
born of a woman who knew no sin was Jesus
Christ: "For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
The truth is that Mary was a human being and
sinner like any other. To say otherwise is a denial
of the Bible's teaching of the total depravity of all
humans

i repeat

Ukutsgp: Jesus' Brothers and Sisters
Toward the end of Matthew 13, we read that
Jesus went to Nazareth, where He was brought
up, and spoke in the synagogue. The townspeople,
who all knew Him and His family well, said, "Is
not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses,
and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they
not all with us? Whence then hath this man all
these things?" (Matthew 13:55-56; see also Mark
6:3).
This seems clear enough. But the Roman Catholic
Church has this response: "Against this doctrine
the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible
mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The
Church has always understood these passages as
not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.
In fact James and Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus',
are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ,
whom St. Matthew significantly calls 'the other
Mary'. They are close relations of Jesus,
according to an Old Testament
expression" (paragraph 500, Catechism of the
Catholic Church ).
John Gill also insists, " And his brethren ; not
strictly so, but either the sons of Joseph by a
former wife; or Mary's, or Joseph's brothers or
sisters sons, and so cousins to Christ; it being
usual with the Jews to call such, and even more
distant relations, brethren." Gill, following the
Catholic theologians on this matter, seems willing
to accept any other scenario but the most
obvious. Do these people name Jesus' uncles and
aunts? No. Why, then, should they name His
cousins? Are they not referring to Joseph, the
man they think of as Jesus' father (although
Jesus was really the Son of God), when they say,
"Is not this the carpenter's son?" Of course. Do
they not directly name Mary as Jesus' mother?
Yes. If they do this, even using the label "mother"
for Mary, it would be completely inconsistent to
use "brethren" to refer to Jesus' cousins. It is
plain that they are naming the members of his
immediate family. This is very strong evidence
against the Catholic position.
A Messianic Prophecy
Apparently John Gill and the Catholics have
forgotten or want to ignore the obvious wording
of the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:8-9: "I am
become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien
unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine
house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of
them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." In
his commentary on verse 8, Gill takes "brethren"
to mean the Jews in general and "also to such
who were still nearer akin to him, according to
the flesh." In commenting on "an alien unto my
mother's children," Gill points out that "alien" can
be taken as "Gentile" or "heathen," but completely
ignores "my mother's children." For this prophecy
to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, He had to have had
brethren, and His mother had to have had other
children. In fact, the Psalmist was simply using
the Hebraism of repeating something two different
ways when he said, "I am become a stranger
unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's
children," for, of course, these two phrases mean
exactly the same thing. Jesus' brethren were His
mother's children. This prophecy is devastating
evidence against the Catholic assertion that Mary
had no other children.
By the way, this also puts to rest Gill's
suggestion that the brothers of Jesus might be
the sons of Joseph by a former wife. They cannot
be so if they are, as the Psalm says, His
"mother's children."
Other Scriptures that refer directly to Jesus'
siblings are Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-34;
Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14;
1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19. Never once, in
all the references to these people, are they
referred to with the Greek word suggenēs , which
has the general meaning of "cousin" or
"kinsman." The word used is always adelphos,
"brother."

i repeat.

Ukutsgp: @vest.

All of us are probably aware that the Catholic and
Orthodox churches believe and teach that Jesus
was the only child born to Mary. In 411,
Augustine wrote that Mary, "remained a virgin in
conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him,
a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at
her breast, always a virgin" ( Sermons 186, 1: PL
38, 999 as quoted in paragraph 510 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church ). We might also
know that many Anglicans believe this. But we
might be surprised that some Protestants believe
this. In fact, Martin Luther, Huldrych (or Ulrich)
Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin all
believed it. In his Commentary on Matthew ,
Calvin even called anyone who disagreed
"pigheaded and fatuous." Perhaps even more
surprising is that the eminent Baptist theologian,
John Gill, regularly waffled on this subject,
seeming to believe it by comments he made, but
never, as far as I know, making a clear statement
committing himself to it. Is there clear, biblical
proof one way or the other?
Jesus' Birth
The first Scriptural evidence is in Matthew 1:18:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost." The Greek word
translated "before" is prin . It means "prior" or
"before." "Came together" is translated from
sunelthein, which means to convene. But it was
also used to mean to come together in marital
relations. So, in other words, before Joseph and
Mary had consummated their marriage, Mary was
found to be pregnant with a child from the Holy
Spirit.
Verses 24 and 25 are often cited by Catholics as
evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity: "Then
Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of
the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth
her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
The word "knew" is from the Greek word,
eginōskin . As Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament explains, this normal Greek
word for "knew" was used by Jews as an "idiom
for sexual intercourse between a man and a
woman." "Till" serves a very great purpose in this
verse. The Catholic argument is that the word
"till" or "until" ( heōs in the Greek) does not
necessarily mean that the action prior to the
point indicated (in this case, sexual abstinence)
does not continue afterward. In other words,
Joseph and Mary may not have ended their
sexual abstinence after Jesus' birth. They may
have continued to refrain from sexual intercourse
for the rest of their lives. Catholics say that this
is, in fact, what happened. John Gill takes a
similar position regarding the word "till": "Joseph
knew her not till she had brought forth, the
meaning is certain that he knew her not before.
But whether he afterwards did or not, is not so
manifest, nor is it a matter of any great
importance." Oh, but it is important when millions
of people who believe in Mary's perpetual
virginity venerate her and pray to her. Yes, it is
important that we find the truth of this matter.
As I said above, "till" is translated from heōs . It
is a conjunction that means "till" or "until."
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary , eleventh edition, the conjunction
"until" means, "up to the time that: up to such
time as."

i repeat.

catholic gullible since 1900.

Anomnity: Dear Op, its not in the office of the pastor to declare dangerous prolonged complete dry fasts exceeding 3 days.God Himself alone has the authority to declare such.

Moses,Jesus and Elijah did not do it on personal choice but they were EXPRESSLY AND CLEARLY DIRECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT and they also recieved supernatural aunction from the holy ghost to execute it.Elijah even recieved supernatural food from an angel and the bible records that ...he went in the strength (empowerment) of that food...throughout the 40 days fast.

So for an individual christian or pastor to decide on such a long total fast without a CERTAIN & CLEAR guidiance from God will lead to a disaster.I have personally heard stories of people who died doing this.

cant d holy spirit direct d pastor to declare 40days dry fast for his congregation?

bolaino: hahahahaha, smh.

i pity u.

pls, u people should leave pastors alone. are there no fake atheist?

Ray360: @stewger. Your claim of Adam and Eve Having Evil in them is totally baseless. The Bible Recorded that After Creation, God Saw that everything he made was GOOD. Adam and Even had no evil in them. Please, stop insisting on falsehood. They were perfect before the fall that changed the course of humanity.

the guy is just defending falsehood as if there is no tomorrow.