₦airaland Forum

120% agreed.

May be demons took cue from the completion of the canon and took a backseat waiting for judgement.

Cessationists would like to imagine that Calvin is the custodian of the Truth. Aks any of them to show you ONE thing Calvin got bad

nlMediator:
The cessationists are free to believe that human beings no longer have the power to heal. What they cannot legitimately dispute is that sicknesses and diseases are real even today. I also hope they are not making any absurd claim that demons or evil spirits no longer operate on earth. If they accept that those beings exist, it means that they continue with their activities of possessing, oppressing and influencing human beings. When demons or agents of satan invade people’s lives, they cause them to do bad things. Those bad things are called sins. Whether it is prostitution or robbery or murder. To say that it’s all about working on such people’s minds evidences spiritual blindness.

I’m not sure I understood you regarding Peter. What’s the distinction between the flesh and the mind? Is the Christian battling the flesh or battling the mind?

As to glory in the midst of cessationists, the point you cannot refute is that you have no proof that you guys have any more glory of God than anybody else. Where’s the evidence? Because you say so? Sorry, not good enough for me. I agree with you though that such glory will repel carnal people. So, leave the carnal people alone and let your glory attract the people that are not carnal. Yet that’s not happening whether here or elsewhere.

As for the Pentecostal you linked, he’s entitled to his opinion.

And Joel Osteen is a holy servant of God. Whom God has raised to bless humanity in our day. Your opinion of him counts for nothing.

Who needs scriptures when you have an unbeaten hallucination streak?

Bidam:
Is this one reading another bible

Great my broda, am glad we agree.
But you watch one too many sci-fi thrillers

BabaGnoni:
I think we are both on the same page (i.e. I posted "...Agabus is probably the last Bible recorded foretelling prophet...... as in NT"

I wrote "... break-up and/or to..." and didnt suggest "...diminishing...".
- Put it this way, possibly frozen, until such a time it'll be recativated (i.e. reversed "time capsule"?)

Gift(s) abused and faked so many times, are ten a penny

True, it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish forthtelling from preaching - but then, one is about spreading the word, building up with the word etecetera, and the other about proclaiming the Kingdom
True, Apollos was a skilled orator with "head knowledge" (i.e. a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures) until he was steered right by Priscilla and Aquila (i.e. shown the way of God more adequately)
True, accuracy and selfless motives will be the most objective tests
We test from/by Scriptures and/or when it happens or takes place

Good question. Jesus appeared to the disciples throughout the forty days intermittently. He told her to tell them because that's the only reason he appeared to her; to make her and others witnesses of his resurrection. Note he did it later in the day

mbaemeka:
Didn't you see "Go and tell them?". Why did he tell her to tell them? Why didn't he do it himself?

He said he would ascend to the father. Where is it written he ascended that moment?

mbaemeka:
AND SAY UNTO THEM I ASCEND UNTO MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER. . .

He Ascended that moment. That is clear enough. Was it 10 days away from Pentecost on this day?

John 20:17 (KJV)
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus says He is going to the father. What's the quarrel?

mbaemeka:
So let me take you step by step. The scriptures will tell which idea is absurd.

1. John 20:17. Where was Jesus going to here? Let us start from there.

2. The teachings Hebrews carried was to help clarify on some of the things we did not understand post-resurrection. That's what I meant.

3. Hebrews 9:11-12. We can also start from here.

I believe we both don't worship no translation nor paraphrase. We are brothers

The point is anybody arguing that since Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is his father and this is evidenced by Jesus being the prince of peace while Holy Spirit/Melchizedek is King of Peace is not making any sense

mbaemeka:
What I meant is the MSG mistranslated that verse. It is not an aberration. Some translators did so according to their own understanding, some of which were erroneous.

The AMP for example, said "through the power of the Holy spirit". How else will anyone say a woman got pregnant except by the power of some other person?

mbaemeka:
My friend, Jesus ascended twice. You would have to ignore clear scriptures to suggest otherwise and if you reduce the discussion to coagulated blood and jars then it would be preposterous and absurd.

Sir, you have to stretch imagery to absurdity to sustain an even worse absurdity called double ascension theory. Somebody told me that Oyakhilome is against graphics depicting Holy Spirit as a dove.

Now, I told you something and you should do well to study it. There is NOTHING that suggests any of these things being explained in Hebrews didn't happen in Heaven. The question you should ask yourself was who was in heaven to see these things and explain them? There are somethings that the book of Hebrews said that are only found in the book, without which we would NEVER have known or understood Christ's priestly role. So you should do well to get the full picture.

Equally there some things in Romans without which we would NEVER have understood things like the future of Israel, relationship between the covenants and so forth. Point is Hebrews carrying unique teachings is nothing to dwell on here.

Christ NEVER ascended with his blood to heaven at no time to offer nothing. The sacrifice and blood was offered and finished at calvary. You can do me a favor and state your biggest conviction on this and I will rebut it right here

mbaemeka:
Hebrews 7:4, 7 KJV

Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

The scriptures ^^ tell us why he must have been great. Abraham met many other kings...he even rejected their gifts and said so that they wouldn't claim they made him rich. Yet he decided to accept word-of-mouth blessings from an ordinary man? Abraham was a prophet man. A prophet of God. He would only bow to a higher spiritual authority. Now you can tell us what type of spiritual authority could be higher than Abraham's. The same Abraham who had a covenant with God to usher in a savior.

Abraham met a king and a priest. It is that simple. Melchizedek was a priest. Are not even kings subject to priests? Had he been a mere king, Abraham would not have done nothing. But then again, I have heard that Kings took tributes from war spoils.

2. Hope you know that it was the HOLY SPIRIT that was the actual creator of the world. Hope you know he is the doer of the spoken word. Hope you know he is the power of God. So when scriptures tell you how Jesus was conceived, you have to understand who actually metted out the conceiving. Maybe you should check the KJV of that verse you quoted to understand why the MSG mistranslated.

MSG is mistranslated? I like. Please advise Gombs. He has an irritating tendency to flash MSG to prop up arguments about words, arguments which can't stand Hebrews or Greek, kind of unknown tongue vs tongues
Now, pick any translation you want here and tell me whether CHILD OF THE HOLY GHOST is a title of any sort or part of a sentence
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%201:18

Which brings back to something I once said; Christ ascended ONCE, ten days to Pentecost, forty days after resurrection. There was never nothing like Jesus in high priestly garments sprinkling blood in heaven out of a jar any more than there was a lamb that was slain. This is imagery you would do well not to stretch. SDAs after their epic 1844 prophecy fail claimed that Jesus the High priest moved from the holy place to the holy of holies.

Which blood did Jesus sprinkle anyway? The shed and coagulated and dried blood on the cross?

Hebrews, the closest to the actual time of writing rejected Pauline authorship. Pauline authorship is a LATE tradition. I would proceed with caution and insist we don't know instead of authoritatively declaring the book Pauline.

mbaemeka:
Jesus became High Priest after his death and resurrection. These things happened after resurrection before final (second)ascension.

As per the Author of Hebrews. To me, the type of spiritual knowledge contained in this book alone shows that no other person bar Paul could have written it. Not a single soul.

mbaemeka:
1. Abraham was not subject to any King. The Jews saw him as the greatest man that ever was. So Paul is telling them how Jesus was greater than Abraham and how it is doctrinally sound even according to the books of Genesis and Psalms that they (Jews) still hold dearly to by showing them that there was another 'man', a priest, who according to the scriptures, was greater than Abraham. So much so that Abraham gave him a tithe and received blessings from him. Paul argues that that Man- Melchizedek was the first in the line of a type of priests that Jesus came after. These priests have an endless life. It is very lucidly put that even though that Melchizedek wasn't Christ himself. He was SIMILAR to Christ and we know why: CHRIST WAS REFERRED TO AS THE CHILD OF THE HOLY GHOST, while to me Melchizedek was a manly form that the HOLY GHOST took after while he visited earth. That is why he can be regarded as KING OF PEACE whereas Jesus was referred to as PRINCE OF PEACE.

1. Abraham offering tithe to him is not necessarily a sign of submission to him as a king. Dude was a priest of the Most high at the same time.

Your hypothesis is;
1. Jesus is Child of the Holy Ghost
2.Jesus is the Prince of Peace
3. Melchizedek is King of Peace

CONCLUSION
Melchizedek is Holy Ghost

You are closely following Theodotus II position on Melchizedek, and many others after him.
Is it really so? I don't think so. First, Jesus is never referred to a 'child of the Holy Ghost. Am sure you have in mind Matthew 1: 18. That is part of a statement/sentence and not a reference to Jesus. Here is your favorite version rendering of the same.

Matthew 1:18-25The Message (MSG)
18-19 The birth of Jesus took place like this. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. Before they came to the marriage bed, Joseph discovered she was pregnant. (It was by the Holy Spirit, but he didn’t know that.) Joseph, chagrined but noble, determined to take care of things quietly so Mary would not be disgraced.

Next, Prince don't necessarily mean son of a King. God said he would make Solomon Prince all the days of his life (1 Kings 11:34),and in 14:7, He made Jeroboam 'prince over my people Israel'

2. How can Jesus come after the order of an ordinary man? It is actually Heretical to suggest so.

How is it heretical? He is called Son of David another 'ordinary man' and 'Lion of the tribe of Judah' another 'ordinary tribe'. In fact, these references as used in heaven and as revealed to John in Revelation suggests some eternal Offices and titles of Christ are founded in flesh and blood. Just saying

Agreed bro, there is nothing particularly spiritual or too hard about narrating history.
That Melchizedek is a king and or a specific place called Salem is not what the author won't share since he has already said that. It is anything but Salem was a spiritual city and Melchizedek was its king bla de bla....

Once again, Hebrews was never authored by Paul and there is zero Pauline about it but that is irrelevant to our discourse.

PS: At what point did Jesus become High priest after the order of Melchizedek?

mbaemeka:
Hebrews 5:10-11 KJV

Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

There were MANY things to say about Melchizedek and Jesus but the Jews were too spiritually dull to understand it. Trust me, if Paul was referring to history from a 'historic city' called Salem his fellow Jews would have known it.

The knowledge Paul was trying to communicate was spiritual.

The big picture is, Hebrews extensively applies arguments from silence to draw parallels between Melchizedek and Christ.
1. Abraham gave a tithe of the spoils to King Melchizedek
2. Jesus is made a priest after the order of Melchizedek

Hebrews is just connecting these two not making a case for the mystical aspect of Melchizedek. Guy was just another king. There is not even the remotest hint of reverence like for the three guys at Mamre.

mbaemeka:
You my friend, are not seeing the big picture.

Hebrews 7:15-16 KJV

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

In the SIMILITUDE of Melchizedek there arose another Priest who is made after the power of an endless life- Jesus Christ.

All Hebrew names have meanings. Regardless of what Salem means or meant, this guy was a King over that place. How could he be identified as a king over a fictitious/metaphorical city/kingdom? The main passage in Genesis rules out metaphor

This was not any of the -phanies

mbaemeka:
That word 'salem' is English rendering for 'Shalom'. Melchizedek was King of Absolute peace and also King of righteousness. There is nothing to suggest that Salem was a real city. Also, Abraham never felt any King was greater than him enough for him to receive a blessing from such a king. This is an aside from the fact that scriptures called Jesus PRINCE of peace and righteousness whereas Melchizedek was called KING of peace.

I believe the little evidences prove that he was a Theophany and not a ChristoPhany as the case maybe.

My broda,
am getting rusty, can't find nobody to fight here. Do me the honors, fight me

mbaemeka:
Christ is.

Not just a priest but a King over a certain Salem.

What if the three guys who visited Abraham were his neighbors with wives and kids? Would that be theophany?

Zikkyy:
How did a priest end up a theophany

You cannot even defend your own post. This is one of the hazard of posting other peeps opinion.

Theophanies came and went. Melchizedek was a King of a historical city Salem,was well known to Abraham

Heb 7:14
now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils.
What is stressed in Hebrews is the SIMILARITIES paralled in ministry not the nature of his being to that of Christ.

The Word became flesh when Jesus was born of Mary.This ought to put out of misery any belief in pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus. And don't take me to Daniel's fiery furnace

I heard Jews believed Melchizedek was Shem son of Noah. He outlived Abraham by 35 years and could have been the oldest guy at that time. Now, look at Job offering sacrifices for his kids. That was the order before Moses. The father was the priest and sometimes the grandfather....

OLAADEGBU:
What do you know about a pre-incarnate theophany? Study the Scriptures and you will discover that this was not the only time Abraham experienced a theophany.

And I 240% stand by this

A Pentecostal in (General) Support of the Strange Fire Conference

The issue of John MacArthur’s recent Strange Fire Conference (and forthcoming book) is all the rage in the Evangelical blogosphere right now. Truth be told, I’m impressed by the attention the whole thing is drawing. If you know anything about MacArthur you know he is a cessationist, and that he has promoted cessationism publicly for quite some time.

I gather the issue is not MacArthur’s cessationism, which is well-known. The issue is that MacArthur has thrown down the theological gauntlet. He’s not merely saying continuationism is wrong, he’s saying it’s wrong and dangerous. While I was not at the conference, reports I read had MacArthur likening Charismatics to Mormonism, saying that Evangelicals will challenge 14 million Mormons, but are silent in the face of half a billion Charismatics. This is inflammatory, perhaps even reckless, speech.

But as you may have gathered from the title, I’m not writing this post to point out MacArthur’s errors or where I disagree with him (though such disagreements do exist). That I’m writing in general support of Strange Fire implies I have particular differences with the conference and some of its themes. This post is about my support of the conference, not my differences with it.

You might be curious about how I, as a Pentecostal pastor, could possibly support any conference that fundamentally challenges the theological foundation of my movement and condemns many of its practices. My reasons are simple:

1. Any error John MacArthur espoused at the conference, and any recklessness he demonstrated, is far less than the errors and recklessness we see in much of the modern Charismatic movement.

http://questiontradition./2013/10/24/a-pentecostal-in-general-support-of-the-strange-fire-conference/

[b]This conference may have started out as as a war on charismatics. But I must agree with one brother who said that this is more of a war of Calvinists who are cessionist on evangelicals who are non Calvinist and some being charismatic.

The reviews I read of the conference suggest a theological arrogance and elitism that rest only with this Calvinistic camp. Those in the MacArthur Lawson camp have set themselves up as the guardians of gospel truth as interpreted through a Calvinistic filter.

MacArthur has already said that those in the charismatic movement are not Christians. Soon that criteria will be applied to those who do not hold to the Canons of Dort.

The troubling thing is the spirit that is coming out of this conference. This spirit reminds me of the attitude of the Reformers toward the Anabaptists. In the eyes of the Reformers who regarded themselves as the guardians of gospel truth. The Anabaptists were heretics because of their belief in believers baptism. Because if this the Anabaptists were persecuted and martyred.

If this same spirit is acted out then one can only imagine what the attitude of MacArthur Lawson will be toward those who not only are charismatic but non Calvinists. My question. Will history repeat itself?[/b]

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=50601&forum=34

I second this 120%

Jesus

MostHigh:
So tell me who is higher than Melchizedek in the order of melchizedek.

Ignorance no excuse either.

You must be inspired.

Meaning there is no record of his birth nor death
Gr. apator, ametor, agenealogetos" translated. into without father, without mother without recorded genealogy.

mbaemeka:
Meaning: he wasn't born and he didn't die. Period.

Was Melchizedek Jesus?

mbaemeka:
Having neither beginning of days nor end of life means what it means. After all, the bible says Jesus came after his order and is forever a priest after an endless life.

Of course the irony of this is lost on you

MostHigh:
Ignorance is no excuse.

First Melchizedek is not called High Priest but Priest. Jesus is the High Priest.
They can't hold the same office at the same time. Who said they did?

MostHigh:
Your catching at straws here


Can 2 distinct people occupy the same eternal office?

remember both are designated high prist of the most high God.

Lawless son of the lawless man.

And yours is not an opinion but statement of fact. Prove it genius

MostHigh:
Thats your opinion.

They are not. What are you smoking?

MostHigh:
Even a child on milk knows that they are one and the same person.

High priest of the most high God.

1. Without father nor mother means we have no record of his family
2. Without genealogy means we have no record of his tribe
3. Having neither beginning of life nor end of life means we have no record of his birth or death

These three things can equally be said of MANY OT characters. Why the author of Hebrews dwells on the absence of records concerning Melchizedek is because he called a Priest and Psalms confirms that. When God gave the Levitical priesthood, those three records were of paramount importance lest a non-Levite undertakes priestly work. Recall service began at a specific age so DoB is concerned.

Hebrews is simply magnifying th fact that Melchizedek was the furthest from a Levite. In fact on this basis he concludes change of the Mosaic covenant whose hallmark was the Levitical Priesthood.

The absence of Melchizedek records don't make him supernatural any more than that of other characters without the same. This is a curiously beautiful argument from silence

lanxlot:
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 translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of salem, Meaning "king of peace,"
3, WITHOUT FATHER, WITHOUT MOTHER, WITHOUT GENEALOGY, HAVING NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYS NOR END OF LIFE, BUT MADE LIKE THE SON OF GOD, REMAINS A PRIEST CONTINUALLY.

Some persons i discussed with said He is Jesus, but idontbilivit for the following:
1, without father; Jesus had a foster father.
2, without mother, I just cannot take away the position of mary.
3, without geneology; the geneology of Jesus Was recorded in the book of matthew chapter 1 vs 1-17.
4; having neither beginning of days nor end of life. ok, this may just be the reason why some say that this Melchizedek is Christ. for Christ had no beginning, neither will he have an end.
but made like the son of God, remains a priest continually. Jesus Is'nt LIKE, He is the son of God.
what if am wrong, and if the person as described is'nt Jesus, who is He?

Naija brand of Christianity is in its own league

See right. There just is no excuse for non-monetary tithing in the OT.God just never required of it.

I wish everyone was as honest as Image123 and admitted tithing is not mandatory, nor a requirement of any sort for Christians. His problem is the arguments he offers to prop a non-mandatory tithing are so bogus that it is insulting.

1. Jesus never taught tithing
2. Apostles never taught it nor is it taught anywhere in the NT
3. Tithing was first instituted hundreds of years after pentecost.

Tithing is as Christian as Christmas

Goshen360:
Your observation is truthfully right. They claim Israel was main or solely agrarian society then but right in their face, scriptures proved them wrong. Many occupations were mentioned in the law but none of them the law required them to tithe.

Atrocious graffiti

BobNeli:
They will read just as you did

My broda,
Agabus was not the LAST,he is the ONLY NT prophet we have record of his work/function. That function included foretelling. There is nothing like diminishing. Paul would not talk of prophecies fading if Agabus gift was a minority in the church. And if prophecy is fore& forthtelling, BOTH ought to cease not one of them. So I don't rule out foretelling presently. But I have seen the gift abused and faked so many times. Here is an example of one;
https://www.nairaland.com/2002872/here-prophet-claiming-malachi-4s

Note we only have one Evangelist positively identifed as such in the NT; Philip. I would not claim that the gift was diminishing on account of the few recorded instances of evangelists. Just saying.

The idea that foretelling turned into forthtelling is a convenient way of watering down the gift of prophecy. Here is how, it is IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish forthtelling from preaching. Apollos was mighty in scriptures already and he was not even Spirit baptized. Also, the most objective test of prophecy is accuracy. That is taken away. How do we test forthtelling? Scriptures,right?

BabaGnoni:
Wisecrack. Didn't know vooks had a funny bone LOL

Tall order, however Agabus is probably the last Bible recorded foretelling prophet (i.e. dont quote me on that and I dont want any NL police on my back either LOL)

nlMediator has said it all, there's no point reinventing the wheel here. Foretelling prophecy has gone past it's "Use by" date, essentially forthtelling prophecy is what has replaced it

Forthtelling prophecy, as a gift, is something to desire and to be used exclusively for the benefit and building up of the body of Christ
Forthtelling prophecy, essentially is speaking the mind of God, as it is used for speaking out words of encouragement, instructions & rebuke to God's people for them to repent and/or return to God

Notice the decline of foretelling prophecy in the Bible and it's break-up and/or transition to forthtelling prophecy, word of wisdom or word of knowledge

Personally, I think love is supreme, as it encompasses all these gifts, furthermore all these gifts, prophecy, speaking in tongues etcetera will fade and pass away except love

Bidam,
Thank you for showing me that Paul was a teacher. But he was also an apostle no doubt and that means he held two Offices at the same time. What stops him from holding a third?

Your points are slurred. Now a continuous manifestation of tongues denotes the office of the prophet. That has zero scriptural basis. Are 'helps and governments' offices?
Signs and wonders were not exclusive to evangelists so you can't argue that since they accompanied Philip when we read of miracles and healings we are reading of evangelists. Try harder explaining evangelists missing in that list. What about pastors?

I have heard ALL your arguments before. One needs a healthy dose of imagination to string the job description of the five-fold. I don't blame you though, you are not the first.

Thank you for trying