₦airaland Forum

So anyone in bling and braids in church is in open rebellion against Holy Spirit?

shdemidemi:
There is no effect for adultery either, that is not to say we should be licentious. Sexual immorality will disgust you as a matured christian.

If the bible demand that we dress a certain way to church, I am completely for it.

mbaemeka:
1. AND SO IS EVERY WORK OF THEIR HANDS AND WHAT THEY OFFER THERE IS UNCLEAN. If they are unclean why will he let them touch him? Won't it make him unclean?

The words were issued by a prophet against Israel. The Priests were part of the problem

2. You are confusing yourself by not merging accounts. I have said so before. Read Mark 16:9, Jesus met with Mary Magdalene ALONE first. That is what John 20:17 corroborated. The way it actually happened is merged by all accounts. First of Mary Magdalene, Salome and co went to the sepulchre Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24. They didn't see his body but instead saw an Angel who told them he had arisen. They partially believed so they went their way to tell his disciples. Mary told Peter and John. John outran Peter but stopped at the entrance while Peter entered and didn't see the body. After much ado Peter and John left but Mary stayed put still sobbing. Jesus then appeared to her and told her what he told her I.e that he was ascending, don't touch me etc. So she went back to Peter and co and told them what he said. The and co included Salome (the one who accompanied her to his grave). Now shortly after Jesus appears to her and Salome together then they bowed and kissed his feet. This time he allowed them obviously because he had completed the sacrifice. We know this because he said ALL HAIL which means HAIL ME (for I have done something big). And also because he told the women to tell his disciples that he would meet them at Galilee. That was when he appeared inside the room in the evening. This meeting with Mary and Salome in Matthews 28 isn't the same with John 20 because in John 20 he told MARY not them..that he was ascending and not that he would see his disciples in Galilee.

Read Matthew account. Jesus met the women on their way to Galilee from the grave that very morning
Please learn to merge accounts.

3. The point about blood and life is trash sir. The spirit is also life. Why didn't he take his spirit too? Please stick to the scriptures. Hebrews 9:12, 14, 18, 25. They are clear. Throw everything else away. Please.

There is no verse that says took his blood to heaven. Quote it

4. No link ever said ANY HIGH PRIEST WAS TOUCHED. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

neither is there any link or more importantly verse that says they were not

5. The lamb is slain at the door of the Tabernacle. Not inside. The blood is then taken through the first veil into the second which is called the Holy of Holies. Jesus was slain on earth. It represents the door of the tabernacle. Then he took his blood into the Holy of Holies in Heaven. The bible said so. I don't know how to argue with clear scriptures. That seems to be your forte. Unenviably so I must add.

So what/where is the tabernacle? earth or heaven? Not a single verse tells you of Jesus trip to heaven. Where is it?

Which of these verses tell you Christ carried blood into heaven?

They are not absurd. A glorified body has no blood to offer my broda. Think through that prayerfully in your free time

mbaemeka:
Hebrews 9:11-12, 14, 23-25, 28 KJV

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I don't know how to argue with clear scriptures or to respond to questions about arteries or veins. All these are absurd. Blood is blood.

Thank you for that lesson on what to expect in NT and what not to. Now,
Is this an 'instruction without corollary effect'? of the equal force as say adultery?

1 Timothy 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
Don't be shy. A Yes/No will do

shdemidemi:
what I mean is there is no such thing as 'thou shall not' and when you do you get killed or get punished. In the new testament you will find 'I beseech you' to present yourself to God. Not because you will be killed or punished but because it is your reasonable service if you are truly a christian i.e a son of your father(God).

mbaemeka:
1. They are not the only commentaries, so sad for those who anchor all their beliefs on such commentaries. If we are to consider that I asked you for commentaries ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT then it would be funnier because we noticed the sidetrack but we played along.

Can you share ANY commentary that supports you? It is sad for those who subscribe to double ascenscion theories without proof and who insist Christ work at Calvary was not finished and they can't explain what was sprinkled in heaven. Did he cut his arteries?

2.Any proof on Mary not touching Jesus will trump all the balderdash that you and the commentaries have said put together. Jesus told someone don't touch and he said why. You lot threw away the reason he said and began making half-witted statements like cling or grasping knees. As though the greek rendering only meant to cling or grab. Wonder why they didn't check out the last meaning- To touch. Or maybe it is because they didn't understand it but to form "I must comment" they decided to take only the cling and neglect the reason that JESUS HIMSELF GAVE. That sort of wisdom is worthy of every disdain it is getting.

Jesus told Mary not to touch and he explained why. None of that tells us that she had (not) touched him. So simple

3. When the High priest slains the sacrificial lamb, does that end the atonement process? NO. So in the same vein Jesus dying on the cross wasn't the end. Like the High priest does when he confesses all the sins of the nation on the lamb, Jesus took all our sins upon himself. Then he died like the lamb had to be slain. Subsequently, the High priest takes the blood of the slain lamb and goes INTO the Tabernacle and the seat of mercy where he sprinkles the blood as the final rite. Then if the sacrifice is accepted, the High priest comes out and declares it to the people. Without even saying so, for the very fact that he comes out alive is already a good sign. Jesus in the same token had to do same to COMPLETE THE SACRIFICE for he wasn't done when Mary saw him. He took his blood into the tabernacle in heaven and into the mercy seat and did as was necessary. Hebrews 9 said it emphatically. So take your wild allegations accusation to the author of Hebrews 9- the HOLY SPIRIT.

You are straining imagery my broda
First, blood represents life. Blood offered and sprinkled on the ark was that of a DEAD animal. Jesus alive in heaven sprinkling his blood is not offering his life in ANY way yet atonement DEMANDED life of an animal.
Secondly, the resurrected Christ had a glorified body. What was there to atone from his resurrected body? What blood did he offer?

3. Adding to scriptures? Hahahahaha. Please read Hebrews 9 and let us see who is adding to what. I am taking the verses at face value. You on the other hand, wished that book wasn't in the bible to begin with.

You are adding. You are saying the resurrected Christ took his own blood from wherever to heaven. Where is that stated?

4. He didn't take sins anywhere man. He destroyed sin on the cross but that was not the end because he only took away the PUNISHMENT FOR SIN here. He needed to paralyze the one that brought sin. He also had to wash away the nature and guilt associated with sin. Last and not least he had to remove the record of sin which could ONLY BE DONE BY BLOOD. That is why he went to the main Holy place- the one in heaven.

Blood of Jesus means life of Christ my broda, not literal blood. When the scriptures say without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, it means without DEATH

- he took his blood, the divine one, the one spilled at calvary but not totally drained from his body. That was the blood he took.

Bro, this is the resurrected Christ in a glorified body not a revived corpse. Did he slash his wrists in heaven?

mbaemeka:
1. Your issue is basic scripture-on- scripture analysis. Leviticus 16 already said the High Priest would be put on Holy garments so as to be clean and holy while carrying out the sacrifice. The same book says he might need to wash several times to make up for any unclean act or saying the Lord's name until he enters the veil. When he does so he would first of all, make sacrificea for himself so as to be clean enough to make sacrifices for the nation. Latter verses says he is to be the ONLY one to enter into the Most holy place (a place he had to go in clean). Now if Haggai 2:14 says that all the people that the High priest is to make atonements for are unclean and infectiously so, doesn't it imply that they would make him unclean? If they make him unclean prior to atonement doesn't it defeat the essence of the atonement?

My broda,
Leviticus 16 talks of multiple washings and all that. Am still waiting for the portion that says the High Priest should touch nobody.

Haggai 2:13-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 Then Haggai said, “If one who is unclean from a [a]corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean?” And the priests answered, “It will become unclean.” 14 Then Haggai said, “‘So is this people. And so is this nation before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.
Note the illustration given that makes the clean Levitical elements unclean are the same things a High Priest was to avoid; corpses of even close relation. A High Priest is unclean if he touches a corpse.Besides, Haggai says ALL people not just the laity. ALL includes the priests and that's why they couldn't offer acceptable sacrifices. Mary was not a corpse. Get other verses to prop your theory my broda

2. Don't side step the do not touch. Juxtapose it with why he said so. Then ask yourself why he let touch him later when he should have been more in a hurry than this earlier time going by your illogic.

First, you have no proof she never touched him apart from imagining that.

Secondly,think through. Shortly thereafter, he met the women who came to the tomb with Mary in Matthew 28 and allowed them to touch him. And note Mary got to the tomb, finds it opened, rushes back,gets Peter and John who rush to the tomb and find it empty. All this while Jesus is resurrected but not in the tomb. Mary is then left there and Jesus appears to her. Why couldn't he rush and atone and then come back all this time and allow all to kiss his feet?

3. The Mercy seat, the Ark of the covenant, people around him, the other priests etc. Wild allegations has been the excuse of those who refuse to study precepts upon precepts, line upon line. I am quoting scriptures. How I wish you would just do so.

Jesus did not ascend to offer blood in heaven. Blood represents his life which he had duly laid down and taken back by Sunday morning

4. Hahahahaha, you are so funny. I provided scriptures. I provided a link. I was ready to give more than one. I even gave you the lee-way to do YOUR OWN research on the subject matter and come up with any one that contradicts my assertion. You did none yet you maintained my scriptural citations were extra-biblical. How risible.

None of your scriptures come close to supporting your claim, none talk of a High Priest who was untouchable during Atonement. The link regurgitated what you are saying. That is not scholarly in any way.

5. Your last point is a clincher and should be archived. It is ample proof that you do not even understand what is been discussed. The lamb is ALWAYS slain outside just at the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation (people will see it being killed) Leviticus 4, then the High priest takes the blood inside (The Holy place) to sprinkle it around the Tabernacle itself and (on days of atonement) also on the mercy seat( most Holy place). So in the same way Jesus was slain outside/at the door of the tabernacle of congregation where everyone saw him. When he was raised and needed to go for the atonement he went ALONE inside the Tabernacle of congregation and sprinkled his blood there and on the Mercy seat in the Holiest place in Heaven Hebrews 9. That is why he could not let Mary touch him before he ascended.

You are stretching Hebrews imagery beyond Holy Spirit and that is why I asked you. What/where is the Holy Place in Christ atonement? What/where is the tabernacle of congregation?

Your question is moot.

Is this a command or an 'instruction without corollary effect'?
1 Corinthians 6:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Semantics aside, is this an 'instruction without corollary effect'?
1 Timothy 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

shdemidemi:
I was not responding to your direct question when I mentioned those words, I was adding those to balance my response.

There is nothing like a command like it was with the old testament, we have instructions without corollary effect. If you are a christian and you understand what it means to be one, you wouldn't need commands.

I never heard nobody suggesting you wrote nothing bro
Who talked about FORCE? Do you teach this as a COMMAND from God like say adultery?

shdemidemi:
I didn't write it there bro. There are some unfavourable things addressed to men as well...we can only obey.

If we call ourselves christians, I don't see why we should be forced to obey His instructions. Its a different matter if you don't know, when you know you should and must obey.[

You are a man so the only relevance of this scripture is to women close to you, wife,sister,church members.....

What do you mean by 'advice'? Do you tell them that God has commanded or do you just appeal to their conscience?

Muslims don hijab and burkka so nothing is impossible

shdemidemi:
1)My family has nothing to do with the issue. I accept what the bible says completely.

2) The greek word used for braids is plegma which means ringlets and curls.

3)Like I said I will advice women don't come to church with such hairdo or they must cover their hair in church.

You come across as though it isn't achievable.

You are cherry picking. Paul addressed modesty and he went above that to state that braiding and bling was a NO NO.He could have let conscience rule but he didn't

Could you please tell me whether this clear instruction is binding on you,your wife,daughter,sister and church or not.

shdemidemi:
Paul gave the reason why women should not pastor a church. He linked it all the way back to creation so it had nothing to do with an immediate problem.
1 Tim 2
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Tim 2:9 Paul was speaking about what is expected at gatherings. I believe these things cause distractions and as such should be discouraged when we come together.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

I believe the main point here is modesty.

If what your conscience tells you is that women should not do these things, then it should be stopped. We can't afford to cherry pick what we accept and what we won't.

SO covering heads is a 'local' problem but pastoring is not?
You have not answered me on Timothy where Paul was specific that his definition of modesty included NO BRAIDS OR JEWELERY. Is this applicable to you?

shdemidemi:
I have explained the issue with the church in Corinth with you before now. It was the hub of idolatry, prostitution and all form of illicit activities. Paul was addressing these new corinth converts (spiritual babes) who live in the middle of the madness going on to dress and behave in a certain way. He also told the men not to pick wives at that period. He gave them those instructions due to the situation of their environment.


Paul was addressing Timothy on how the church should be conducted. All he was saying about women here was modesty in the church.

There is no excuse for disobeying scripture really. NO WOMAN SHOULD PASTOR.

shdemidemi:
There is a difference between awareness and knowing.
Most christians are aware of the truth and God not many know God in His fullness and concept.

What's the difference between awareness and knowing?

You move from knowledge to understanding when you make a decision to submit your life to God as His slave(bond).

So there is no room for KNOWLEDGE in Christianity?

NO

He wouldn't. Jeremiah spoke of the heart of man. He is saying man is evil, His thoughts is continually wicked. This isn't just because we are morally wrong or emotionally wrong, it is because we can't please God in our flesh no matter how much we try.

You said the heart can't be evil. I just showed you it is inherently evil

God gives us a new heart at regeneration.

Agreed

Coming to Christ does not. Studying God's word does. Coming to Christ justifies, studying scripture renew our distorted way of thinking

1 Tim 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

there are other places in Paul’s letters that prohibit things that are clearly cultural – women cutting off their hair or shaving their heads (1 Cor 11:6), men having long hair (1 Cor 11:14), or women wearing jewelry and braiding their hair (1 Tim 2:9). Do you subscribe to ANY of these?

I mean apart from poking holes at their doctrines and failed prophecies, do you personally reach out to them?

paulGrundy:
What happened? Don't you want me to dispense accurate truth in nairaland?

Please if you see any anointed jehovahs witness that was alive in 1914, please show me oh! Am scared the world might have ended, and I don't know.

Cc: BERNIMORE/ CANTCLES/ truthislight

I don't know much about his theology but I heard those words from him first. Just as Winsomex put it.
Now, nora544, every time I run into your posts I find criticism of ministers. Just like Frosbel. Apart from tearing everything you run into apart, it helps to break the monotony by sharing with us what you have done for God as well as WHO we should follow and not just who we should avoid.

The reason is all too clear. Many critics here shy away from giving us examples of ministers worth listening yet they never hesitate to 'name and shame' everyone preaching anything they don't agree with. Why is this? I guess it is some form of defense mechanism; we can't criticize what we don't know so they HIDE that from everyone while pouring vitriol on others

nora544:
i know many times when you can read from adeboye my father told me.........

I can show you he is very good in twisting the sriptures like he need it that he can show himself in a good light.

Who told him this, that on his churchhomepage is also a button that you can donate a gift(money) to him.

paulgrundy,
Do you share your faith with JWs?

shdemidemi:
I am not sure preconceived notion is the right statement. I think the reason why anyone should open the bible is to know and find out more about God. I think just seeing the sun, stars, moon, animals and the creation of the world should attract us to God. But its rather unfortunate that most people get attracted to God when they need something that is beyond their capacity to achieve. God becomes the last resort to achieving such things.

Therefore, When I go in the bible i go look for God. I believe when I find God through scriptures everything will be put in their right place.

You are looking for a God you already know about.

Head knowledge was what the scribes and Pharisees had. They knew the letter inside out but when the reason for their education came they could not see it.

You have not distinguished between the two

Understanding was what Apostle Paul had. He lived and died for what he knew about Christ, he wouldn't compromise, he became a servant in bond. Not only was he ready to suffer, he was ready to die for God's word. He was not only talking the talk, he was deeply rooted in what he was saying and his life remains a testimony to the power of God.

How do you move from knowledge to understanding? Can you understand without knowing?

Our mind is the place where all the junks we here are stored. The word of God if properly discerned also goes through the mind to the heart. The heart is a place where lies or false teachings can't reach. That is why we tell our spouse we love them from the bottom of our heart not our mind.

Jeremiah would differ with you. He says the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked

That is why we need to look at all things from the eye of scripture.. There are five essence of the soul we get from our parents and some from the community as we grow, the three main ones are- mentality, volition, emotion.

Our mentality, volition and emotion are not right, they have been tainted by sin in the likeness of Adam. Hence why we need a renewing of our maladjusted mind to conform with the mind of God.

Does coming to Christ dispense with our emotions? Are you emotional Mr Shdemidemi?

God gives us a new heart when we become believers. This heart is nourished by the Word of God only.

We are a subtotal of the information resident in us. Our total personality is the outward manifestation of our inner being. You can't separate the state of your mind from your actions.

Where do our emotions reside, heart or mind?

When a woman pastor a church, it is a disobedience to God and His word concerning the issuue

Which Word?

None of those commentators can match your intelligence. If I was you, I'd weep at their foolishness

-You claim Mary never touched Jesus and you have no proof, you are the one adding to the Word

-You claim Jesus sacrifice on the cross and bearing our sins was not sufficient and a man touching him could contaminate his ALREADY done sacrifice, you are adding to scriptures

- You also claim Jesus carried his blood to heaven, you are adding to scriptures

Two questions
1. He bore our sins in his own body at the cross. Where did he take them after the cross?
2. What blood did he carry to heaven? The one shed at calvary or the one running through his veins?

mbaemeka:
...By the way, read the link. Read a few of the commentaries and I stopped to laugh hard. This is what happens when we take the scriptures and try to force them to say what we want them to say. That verse is EASY as A B C.

Jesus didn't leave us in doubt as to why he told her not to touch him. Based on that, EVERY OTHER THING the commentaries have to say is ERRONEOUS. Jesus said don't touch me FOR/BECAUSE I have not ascended unto my father. The reason he told her not to touch him was because he hadn't ascended. If you disagree take the complaints to Jesus himself. I am regurgitating his words to you and you are disregarding them and using yours to suppress his.

mbaemeka:
Haggai 2:14 KJV

Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord ; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

This verse tells you nothing about not touching a priest

1. You are jumping here and there now. For your point to make any sense we would have to prove that they were doing any of the said things before the INITIAL command was given and not after. There was nothing of the sort. Don't do this means don't do it. It doesn't mean stop doing it. Any other arrangement is illogical.

Do not touch tells you nothing about whether she had touched or not. So simple

2. Hahahahaha at Ritual uncleanness is transferrable and not sin. I cannot remember even remotely referring to sin in any of my posts on this thread. I said if she touched him she would have rendered the sacrifice unclean and it will be disallowed. Then I compared it with the OT high priest on the day of atonement. He too was not allowed to touch anything on entering into the most holy place so as not to render the sacrifice unclean. I never mentioned sin and you know it. The verse above shows that everything was regarded as unclean (including humans and the works of their hand).

No scriptures are provided, nor extra-biblical sources. What's your basis for these wild allegations? What else was there to touch in the Holy Place seeing he was the only person there?

3. I have given scriptures. I have given links of proponents of Judaism. They all say the same things. This is an aside from the fact that you have tried to dismiss clear words in John 20:17 and Hebrews 9 because you want to maintain a belief that keeps some of your errors looking right in your eyes.

The link just regurgitates your theory. You have simply referred me to a link that says what you are saying namely a priest could not be touched. I need evidence for this not affirmation from another sect. Scriptural basis not fantasies. I even allowed you the pleasure of extra-biblical sources. None supports you

4. I have shown you Leviticus 16:17, I have shown you Haggai 2:14. Nobody touched the priest. It is that simple.

None of those talk about touching no priest and you know it. Why are you being shdemidemi? Clinging to man made traditions you can't substantiate?


Leviticus 16:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
Atonement, according to your theory, was done in heaven, that's where there should have been NO MAN. Let's grant you that the 'tabernacle of congregation' was here on earth. There were men at the cross, at the grave. Did Mary flout this shadow by ambushing a yet-to-atone resurrected Christ?

shdemidemi:
That is why it is important never to read any part of scripture for self glorification or aggrandisement. Until I see the hand of God and His mercy and His sovereignty reflect in a scripture I never accept that I am interpreting it right. The bible in its entirety isn't about man or to glorify man, it is holistically about a fair and merciful God and His disobedient creature.

This means before you study scriptures to know about God, you need preconceived notions

There is a difference between having head knowledge of scripture and understanding/believing what you know. Most with head knowledge don't understand neither can they comprehend or believe with all of their being the concept and efficacy of what they know. Most of the time these knowledge stays within the realm of the mind but a spiritual impulsed christian have this word conveyed and entrenched in the heart. They live it, act it and they become metamorphosed in to an image of Christ.

What is the difference between understanding and head knowledge?
And what is the difference between mind and heart?

Emotions was imputed in us through DNA as far back as from Adam. Emotions are linked to the sinful nature of man. Immediate parents also pass emotions and by extension our total personality to us through genes. Invariably, our behaviours, our attitude, opinions, traits are linked and similar to that of our parents.

Emotions are part of your genetic make up. God made them. Nobody is free of emotions except corpses. We relate to God with all our hearts,mind and might. Emotion are part of the package

What the bible does is break down our personal opinions, emotions, ego, mentality to God's personality.


Romans 12 King James Version (KJV)

12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2 And be not conformed to this world(This means we can't think like the world think, we can't copy them either): [size=40pt]but be ye transformed[/size] by the renewing of your mind(God needs a total refurbishment of the way we think and this thinking must be guided by His instructions), that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

These are generalities. What is mind? What has this verse got to do with emotions?

Never.

What happens when women pastor churches?

Winsomex, I agree with the highlighted.
I was watching Adeboye from Youtube and he said something I have never forgotten; he said God is not as talkative and the 'God told me' every minute crew are jokers. He said it was not until 450 years or so from Malachi that He spoke in Matthew. I was almost misled into marriage by a 'God told me' friend. Nowadays am wiser, so He told you? Let Him tell me as well

And let's not delude ourselves, neither charismatics nor cessationists can claim to be more objective over the other. Different sects in each camp is enough proof of this

WinsomeX:
Thank you demi for your question. Difficult but challenging all the same. Before I answer the question let me say that the cessationist have indeed gotten most things right. But bc we are human, there is a likelihood for us to take our positions to some extremes and sometimes God brings other extremes to our view to restore us. That, I think is the charismatics.

The concept of Sufficiency of Scripture is solid truth. It is true that the words of scriptures are sufficient to minister to the details of our lives and ministry. MacArthur was right when he said that the Word must not be separated from the Spirit. True grasp of spiritual realities should come from understanding scriptures. But...

There is a reason why the bible is not just one long theological text. Why its doctrine is closely associated with the stories and experiences of people from day to day. Jesus' life recorded in scriptures is an experience. His Holy Spirit comes along us each day to make the reality of Jesus real in our day after day experiences. These experiences have a proper perspectives for us with a solid grasp of theological truths but they are still experiences.

So regardless of the Christian, there are times of high and low; sickness and health; riches and poverty; etc. The Holy Spirit, in the light of scriptures, comfort us as you said, as he makes these realities take up new meaning in our lives. So we might attain the "all good" God intended them to be.

Now, this is where I might path with Cessationists. Part of the means of comforting the Christian is the Spirit speaking to Christians. Primarily through scriptures and at rare times through impressions, circumstances, providence or the still small voice.

This is where I also part with Charismatics, God is not talkative. The phrase "God told me..." is the most abused phrase among them and it should be discouraged. Charismatics need to be reminded that the scripture is the authoritative word from God and every other is to be tested in its light.

Paul taught us that the Spirit will lead us as Sons of God. Jesus said the Spirit will teach us and guide us into all truth. God through the Psalmist said that he will instruct us in the way we should go, Ps. 32:8. Jesus said that his sheep will gear his voice. Isaiah said we would hear a voice behind us saying this is the way walk in it. The sufficient scriptures makes all these blessings clearer to us.

This is where I think the Cessationist have gotten it wrong. A commitment to scriptures alone with a strong disdain for other means with which God might wish to reach us bc of fanatics. Again God speaks primarily through scriptures but bc he is God and he can use anything to reach us, we shouldn't put him in a box.

How do you know it is God showing you and not your own imagination?

Others study the same scriptures to their perdition. That's the point that is being made. Bibliolatry is worshiping scriptures. It is so impersonal, just exegesis,eisegesis, Greek, Aramaic,Hebrews and Aorist tenses..... If knowledge was all it took to save, the most schooled in theology would be the the leading lights but they are not. Even in Jesus times, the most educated in Torah were the furthest from the truth

Emotions just like everything else can be abused but you can't possibly divorce man from emotions. They are not invented but God given. Jesus wept,, Paul calls us to rejoice, weep with those who weep. Nobody is above emotions except hypocrites. BTW, which verses discredit emotion?

PS: You mean women shouldn't pastor?

shdemidemi:
As regards my bible study-He keeps me in remembrance of the right things of God that I read in scripture. He makes me make discerning judgements of biblical truths as I grow in Him.

Emotions can be evil as far as scripture is concerned.

We must learn to suppress emotions and stick stringently to God's word on any issue. Many christians have compromised the Word of God due to a high degree of emotion. Emotions make some accept gay people to be pastors, emotions make us accept women to pastor churches, emotions makes us make seemingly noble decisions that negate God's instructions. Emotions made Abraham take Lot along when he (Abram) was the one God called.

The life of a christian or rather the mind of a christian should never be controlled by haps or mishaps around him. We must learn to have a stable mind, a mind that that stays abase and abound at all times- Good or bad. This is why some question God though quietly when it is tough and sing Hosanna when things seem better. God wants us to be joyful independent of our situations and circumstances and this joy can only come by the Holy Spirit.

Agreed but this has been his job ever since Pentecost.
How does the Holy Spirit help you in your devotion, bible study?

And who said emotions are necessarily a bad thing? Are we supposed to suppress emotions? What about the good times? Can't we be happy,excited? Calm? Sad?

shdemidemi:
The major job of the Holy Spirit today is the job of a COMFORTER.

I must say one who perceives himself as comfortable will not need the help of the Holy Spirit. One who needs comfort is the one going through relative pains, worries, concerns and I must say we all have at least one thing within us that we will rather do without or change if we were in a position to do so; and that applies to every man regardless of their persuasions or belief.

The roar of the lion is designed to confuse the prey just as our problem are there to confuse us...…But the Holy Spirit through the word of God transforms a christian's view point regarding issues that would naturally perturb or unsettle him/her.

When we are moved by emotions when unfavourable things happen to us, we can only depend on the Holy Spirit for succour at such times.

The author posed a question I have never thought of; what is Holy Spirit doing in your life today?
(11) Finally, a question: To what does the Spirit bear witness? Certainly the resurrection of Christ. How about the scriptures? A particular interpretation perhaps? Eschatological issues? Exegetical issues? Don't be too quick to answer. Some of this needs rethinking . . . In fact, my challenge to each of you is this: reexamine the New Testament teaching about the Holy Spirit. Don't gloss over the passages, but wrestle with what they mean. If the Spirit did not die in the first century, then what is he doing today?

When you answer that, as honestly without resorting to politically correct spiritual answers, we will get somewhere

shdemidemi:
I don't think I agree that our relationship with the Holy Spirit suffers due to our commitment to scriptures alone. On the contrary, I think it flourish and burgeon.

I feel people don't generally understand what it takes to walk with God. I am sure you know it is not rosy at all. As far as the flesh is concerned- It is uncomfortable, unpleasant, painful to the body to mortify our flesh but at such time God is glorified. Its quite a task to tell that to a new convert or a weak believer because he might not be fit to endure and persevere- He might question God. I believe knowing the truth about God attracts persecution from all angles. If we can't get to a place in our thinking where everything can go but God, we will continually come up with doctrines(another gospel) that ministers to our flesh.

I will really like to know what you would rather have a cessationist do differently. I would also like to know those things you think they are missing however small you think they are.

In Corinthians, we have the principle of tithes expounded

1 Corinthians 9:13-14 King James Version (KJV)
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

But note this applies not just to tithes but every offering that the priests ATE. So the principle is not a legalistic 10% which goes against Pauline formula of without compulsion and as you purpose in your heart, but in serving ministers of the gospel. Anybody supporting ministers is living out the principle of tithing but modern Pharisee who brag before God that they are not as other men think they are living out the principle when they give 10% of their income and nobody else is. They like gloating

Image123:
What i referred to as delusional was the God's only holy tithe definition that Mark propagates. Comprehend? NO ONE is contesting ALL THE TITHE OF THE LAND. What we have simply and straightly contested is the addition "ONLY" which changes the context. For instance, i believe that Jesus is the ONLY way, my perspective is different from the random religious person in Lagos that believes all religions lead to God. ONLY has not changed in meaning.
In Deut 12v8, the Israelites were in the wilderness and were not tithing there. Don't twist that passage to refer to tithes again. Again, we are not under the law so stop prescribing it to us(even though you naively missed the import and interpretation). The principle of the tithe is so plain that it takes so much twist and letter for the common man to miss it. It is akin to the principle of Jesus as the Lamb or as Adam(last Adam). Jesus is the our passover lamb but not an animal. The passover lamb was offered by each family and sprinkled on each door post. The lamb wasn't necessarily crucified etc. In God's eyes the same principle however applies, Jesus is our paschal Lamb that takes our sins away. Jesus is the last Adam. In the similitude of Adam, He is the beginning of God's creation as it were. He doesn't however have to live in a garden or have a physical wife or be created, He was born etc. In the same principle, the tithe is simply a tenth and the Holy Spirit through the Bible recognises it so. He refers to Abraham's tithe, Leviticus tithe, pharisee tithe etc as simply tithe which is 1/10. It doesn't say any one is unholy or make silly demarcations as monetary tithe and other such seminary terms. Go and start reading your Bible instead of listening to Mark.

mbaemeka:
1. Yes the command was not to touch. The question is do you tell someone who is already touching you not to touch? Come on !

The answer is it is inconclusive. Read about the continuos present tenses here. Of course you have little respect for ALL these commentaries because NONE remotely supports your 'revelation' or double ascension theories.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/20-17.htm

Look up ANY command forbidding anything, touch not the mountain, do not eat food offered to idols.... Can you honestly conclude that they were not doing any of the forbidden BEFORE and right up to the command?

2. I gave you books to read from Leviticus 16, Exodus 29 and 30, Numbers 4, Haggai 2 etc. All these verses give a picture that when viewed holistically will show the idea. If you want links I can provide them in a subsequent post. The point is that the reason for the atonement was to cleanse people of their sins. If he needs to cleanse them, then it implies that they were not clean already. If they are unclean and touch the high priest on his way into the Tabernacle does he cleanse them or do they make him unclean? Haggai 2:11-15 (uncleanliness is infectious, cleanliness is NOT) If he is unclean whilst making the sacrifice for them will it stand? All these things can be readily seen from those verses.

There is NOTHING on ALL those chapters forbidding touching, otherwise quote it. Sins are not communicable by touching, ritual uncleanliness is, and this is well provided for. Atonement was about sins.What's the big deal? Did God expect them to interpolate and avoid human contact instead of saying so?

Here is one link I readily found; http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Feasts%20of%20the%20Lord/day_of_atonement.htm

Scriptures please, or are they the same traditions of men Jesus viciously attacked?

3. Your point is wrong. The scriptures clearly say he is to stay away from everyone. And not because he is busy. He was even mandated to wash as much as 5 times within that short time. Leviticus 16:17

Washing frequency notwithstanding,human contact was NEVER forbidden. That's the smoking gun bro.....not my or your creativity

If I had read these links before commenting on this thread, I'd have posted less than a quarter of what I have

nlMediator:
For some good critiques of cessationism, I commend the following links:

https://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical

http://samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/not-all-cessationists-are-of-macarthurs-spirit

Read also the comments in the second link.

Wisdom is known by its fruit. We'll get to know how wise those creating and perpetuating all these divisions in the Body of Christ have been.

mbaemeka:
1. Any won't do. That much is clear. "Don't do it" is a world apart from "stop doing it".

You are interpolating. The command was to not touch. There is silence on whether Mary did it or had done it and you can't infer nothing from Jesus words

2. Every human being was ritually unclean. They were all sinners all of them. And the evidences abound concerning what the priests did and didn't do. I asked you to do ANY research and bring ANY evidence that what I said was not so. Basically ALL the commentaries know this fact.

You claim priests were not touched. If you want to appeal to extra-biblical sources to prop your assertions, be my guest. In the scriptures, there is NO hint of nothing and that's why you are shying from presenting scriptural evidence. Now, could you please step outside scriptures to prove your point? These are your claims,back them up. Why send me on a wild goose chase proving a negative? Where is nlMediator to guide us on burden of proof?

Also, I didn't say they became pure post-resurrection for the fun of it. It was only after the resurrection that they got born-again. When the High priest was done with the sacrifice he was allowed to take of the apparel, wash, and go back to his family. But was he allowed to hang around his family during the atonement? NO.

You are shying from scriptures because none exists. Atonement lasted what, less than a day. The High Priest kept off his family because he was busy not because he was avoiding contamination

3. It is the presence of the Lord that makes a place holy. So exactly where Jesus was killed was a holy place (because God's presence was there before he deserted Jesus). The bible didn't say the sacrifice was killed inside THE MOST HOLY PLACE. There is a difference between a holy place and THE most holy place.

The tabernacle had Holy place and Most Holy place. more of this later.

mbaemeka:
1. Will Jesus say "don't touch me" to someone who was already touching him or would he say it to someone who was about to touch him?

Any will do.

2. Mary as was every human being on earth at the point of resurrection was unclean to touch him. Then he ascended into heaven, peformed all the necessary rites, was declared King, High Priest, given the highest name and authority etc. And then returned to earth. This time Mary like everyother person was now allowed to touch him.

Am mighty glad you have toned down. She was not ritually unclean. There is NO proof nowhere of priests avoiding human contact. After this line of argument has failed you now resort so some esoteric post-resurrection purity which could be tainted by as much as human touch?

3. I don't understand the question. The sin offering was killed on the side of the altar northward towards God. So?

The sacrifice was killed INSIDE the tabernacle/Holy place. What is the NT equivalent of the Holy place? Is it on earth?

mbaemeka:
The FYI was to preempt the lame excuse that he was averse to women touching him. Glad we can put that out of the way. I am puzzled that you can see clear scriptures saying she saw someone and said something and was told not to touch and yet I am being asked to prove that she didn't.

We have Jesus words touch me not. Anything else is upon you to prove sir!

As per unclean thing in relation to dead things that was one aspect. A woman in her P was also unclean, a leper was unclean etc. Let us not reduce it to absurdities. Every evidence (both scriptural and otherwise) states that the Priests weren't touched when entering the Holy of Holies. For you to prove that assertion wrong, it is incumbent upon you to show us any verse to the contrary.

SO now Mary was ritually unclean to touch Jesus Christ as per Moses but in Matthew 28 she joined other women in not touching but clinging to him? She lost her manners?

When Jesus bore the sins of the world, he did so on his body. Which is similar to the slaughter lamb on whom the sins of the nation is confessed upon. Then the lamb is slain like Jesus was crucified. After that the blood of the slain lamb is taken into the Tabernacle (the Most holy place) where it is then sprinkled there. So Jesus had to take his blood into the Most Holy place in heaven to do so. He did this after he resurrected. I know what happened for 3 days while he was in a tomb but it is surfeit to the discussion.

As per his blood in Heaven, Hebrews 9.

Leviticus 1:11,6:25. Does it bother you that the sin offerings (bull and goat) was killed INSIDE the veil?

There is nothing to understand in what you are saying that I don't understand.
You reckon Melchizedek aka Holy Spirit was on earth during the life of Christ?

Jews were led out of Egypt by an angel. Can we please stop digressing? Stick to Melchizedek. Thanks

mbaemeka:
LOL, read my posts well. When the son put on flesh he was called JESUS. When the Spirit put on flesh he was called Melchizedek. Mechizedek will ALWAYS exist in so far as the spirit decides to put on flesh. That shouldn't be hard to understand. He made several appearances in the OT and you and I can agree that it wasn't Jesus. For example, the one who led the Jews out of Israel wasn't Jesus.

There is no record of Mary not touching, the are continuous present tense in those words equally suggesting she was ask to cease. Geek aside, she never touched him is at best imagined

Matthew 28 is very clear women fell at his feet and kissed him. Luke 7:38 has Mary kissing his feet and wiping them with her hair. So your FYI is mighty welcome but you can do better than preach to the choir

There are NO notions nowhere of a High Priest avoiding contact with nobody. They were supposed to avoid things that made everyone unclean like corpses not living primates

So Jesus bore our sins at the TREE, a curious rendering of the cross. Am glad we agree. We are bros . What happened after bearing them? He ascended to Holy of Holies 36 hours later to atone for them?

PS:Can we drop digression? Let's stick to Jesus blood in heaven. We have enough time to crack Revelation. Thanks

mbaemeka:
The bible said she first of SAW who it was and yelled "Master". Then he said "Don't touch me". This simply means she wanted to touch him to probably feel that he was real and not an apparition. To solidify this claim he met his disciples later and almost begged them to touch and feel him. Hope you know Jesus let women even kiss his feet. So he had no qualms with the opposite sex FYI.

As per the books I gave you, really the notion is scattered around scriptures even in Haggai and Numbers as well as in Exodus 30. The notion was that no unclean thing should touch the priest. If in doubt, we can readily Google Judaism in relation to the day of atonement and see it expressly stated by those who mastered the law. So we can put it to bed.

Yes he bore our sins at the cross but that is NOT where all he did started or ended. We would need to compare scriptures with scriptures to have real time display of how things panned out. For example, he told John in Revelations 1:17-18 that he took the keys of hell and death from satan. Did this also happen at the cross?

I chose the word of God over your garbage. Am sorry if I esteem His revelation infinitesimally higher than your puny brains imagination

I laugh in Yoruba

shdemidemi: