₦airaland Forum

Bidam:
I am not on my lappy right now. Pls do post the scripture let's see.

Bidam:
Your cup of coffee, not mine.

Did my post ask you a question? As confused as shdemidemi.SMH!

Bidam:
Aha! I get your point, i thought your previous post was reffering the catholics as "primitive Christians", so if the primitive christians are the early apostles, then it will be safe to conclude that these "primitve christians" according to you never left the temple since it wasn't destroyed till 70AD, it is safe to conclude they practised child dedication after pentecost.

Remember when Paul came to Jerusalem and told these "primitive christians" what God has done in gentile nations, they still advised him in Acts 21:21-24.

nlMediator:
I may be mistaken, but were you not the guy that asked that pidgin not be spoken to you because you're not Nigerian? You know of and use Gbam, huh?

mbaemeka:
John 16:7 KJV

[size=4pt]Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient and I you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 16:28 KJV

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Jesus was leaving the world. He was about to complete his mission by dying on the cross so he began to prepare the minds of his disciples by telling them exactly so. Naturally, they felt sad. The Teacher, helper, cormforter, advocate etc. Was going to leave them after all he had taught and shown them. They felt abandoned like Orphans. So he shares a secret with them that he is sure will make up for his absence: that when he leaves the father would send 'Allos Parakletos' meaning another one of the same kind. The only difference being that he would be a spirit that will live in the disciples butwwould be unseen or unknown to natural men.

Jesus goes further by saying it is to their advantage that he leaves the scene. For if he doesn't, that Spirit of truth will not come. The Spirit of truth is whom Jesus referred to as Allos Parakletos. He was to REPLACE Jesus in the lives of the disciples because he is EXACTLY like Jesus and Jesus was leaving the scene.

Jesus said he would testify of him and only take from him to show the world. Jesus said he would teach all truth (the same 'all' truths Jesus could not share with his disciples at the time). He was to glorify Jesus and make Jesus 'still present' in the disciples life even though Jesus would be in heaven. That's why Paul kept saying "if Christ be in you" "till Christ be formed in you" etc. Christ will only be present in the christians life by the agency of the Holy Spirit.

In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul shows us who we are to fellowship with. He says we are to know the Love of God and the Grace of the Lord Jesus but when he gets to the Holy Spirit, he tells us to have communion, fellowship, intimacy with him. Why? Because he is the one present now in the world and in the life of a christian. Not a single person can claim to know Jesus without fellowshiping with the Holy Spirit. That's why feel for those who neglect their devotions to him and in the same breath claim they know Jesus. It is not possible.
[/size]
T This is the reason there are some self styled christians that question the way this precious Holy Spirit of God chooses to manifest himself .They question it because they do not know the one who makes these manifestations possible- The Spirit of Christ himself and we are in his DISPENSATION.

WinsomeX:
And what he stated was not an experience? An experience he chose not to speak about? I think you should just allow the discussion to continue while you observe. You really don't have to talk.

Ayatullah:

BECAUSE THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU
Resolve your ignorance by reading the Qur'an.

Bidam:
Aha! I get your point, i thought your previous post was reffering the catholics as "primitive Christians", so if the primitive christians are the early apostles, then it will be safe to conclude that these "primitve christians" according to you never left the temple since it wasn't destroyed till 70AD, it is safe to conclude they practised child dedication after pentecost.

Remember when Paul came to Jerusalem and told these "primitive christians" what God has done in gentile nations, they still advised him in Acts 21:21-24.

nlMediator:
You sure have an opinion. Your goal is to bail somebody out. Otherwise why take the trouble to run a google search and post the irrelevant search result you posted? As you can see, I modified my post to ask you another question, Mr. I don't argue from silence AND Mr. If I don't respond to people's claim against me, it doesn't mean it is true. You people and your useless double standard!

nlMediator:
Even coming from you, this is ridiculous. Who are the close friends and where did they make such reference?

For your information, Hagin stated repeatedly what his calling was. And it was not apostle. He even had something to say about those who claim the apostolic mandate without the call to back it.

Bidam:
I am not angry mr vooks. If you have a contrary opinion as per the catholics being the first to initiate child dedication by the early church pls feel free to air your views. You are not only educating me but our viewers.

In July 2002 while praying the Lord revealed to me that Dad Hagin was not just a Prophet but he was an Apostle to his entire generation. The Lord did not reveal to me, at his funeral nor at this time in 2002, that he was the forerunner of the second coming of Jesus Christ.

In 2003, just a few weeks before Dad Hagin’s home going I was able to talk with him about what I saw in the Spirit about him being an Apostle to his generation. He told me the story of Jesus appearing to his mother before he was born and told her to name him John. I still had not received the revelation that he was the forerunner of the second coming of Jesus Christ, even though I heard him tell the story many times. The first time he ever mentioned, publicly, that he was the forerunner of the second coming of Jesus Christ, just as John the Baptist was the forerunner of the first coming of Jesus was at his Camp Meeting in July 2001, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

nlMediator:
You guys are so comfortable with lying. Raises questions about who you fellowship with more: the father of lies or the Father of life? Can you point to just ONE place in almost 70 years of ministry where Hagin claimed to be an apostle?

Bidam:
It does answer your question, if you have another opinion you can say it without silly repeatitions.

Bidam:
Read the op, it was stated there that the catholics call it infant baptism.

Bidam:
Did you read the op?

Bidam:
Read the OP.

trustman:
Again, is there anything in the lives of the apostles or the epistles that substantiates this?

mbaemeka:
Nannymcphee,
Now kindly tell us how anybody will see that image and think that the snake bit the tree because the Maltans (to you and yours) 'thought' Paul was bitten and the ONLY way they would have thought so, was if they saw the head and not the tail around Paul's hand.

nlMediator:
Why are all of you emphasizing the part of the commentary that is convenient? Your quote clearly says that the way "fastened" is written there, it is implied that he was bitten. That may even be the reason Luke did not bother elaborating. He assumes he's writing to people with common sense, who would understand what happens when such a snake fastens itself on somebody's hand. And that's exactly what the villagers did, as Luke was kind enough to report. If something outside the norm occurred, i.e. the sanke fastened without biting or attacking, then Luke would have found it important to mention that. But he did not. In this case, and in light of what he reported about the people's impression, silence speaks volumes.

Lobeez:
Bla bla bla bla bla
If you were to fill in the gap here what would it be?

The pretty viper is_________on a tree

a. Hanging
b. Fastened
c. sitting
d. jumping


https://www.cayoanimalwelfaresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EyelashViper2.jpg


Snakes actually avoid biting as much as possible especially humans, in fact, they like all animals see humans as predators so their natural instinct most times will be to avoid confrontations. Yes, I did say that vipers are fast strikers and yes you are right they sometimes bite and hold small prey. It could only have driven its fangs into Paul only if Paul tried to hold it firmly and not let go. Almost all snakes behave this way, venomous or non venomous.
The snake probably hung onto Pauls hands by its tail like in the attached picture

Bidam:
Nope, you didn't, you were just blowing hot air with no substance. Anyway, thanks for stopping by.

mbaemeka:
You are as close-minded as you accuse him of being and while his is better (because he is sticking to the word) you on the other hand are changing positions with each extra biblical idea that pops up.

The Book of Acts 28 from vs 3-4 says virtually everything that needs to be said and NlMediator and Gombs have done a very good job in showing it. To suggest that the scriptures didn't say Paul was bitten only shows how time has exposed what you truly believe about God or his power.

Vs 3 says a snake fastened itself on Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it not that they assumed. Now we have quibbled over the greek word that was translated to mean Fasten but we have not checked what the word 'fasten' actually means in English. Most English dictionaries define 'fastening' as the act of attaching FIRMLY to something else as by PINNING or NAILING. It never defined fastening as wrapping, coiling etc. Yet you and the rest kept throwing about the word 'wrapping' even when the very scriptures NEVER mentioned anything related to wrapping. The word used was fasten and it means the snake attached itself to Paul as by pinning itself to him or nailing itself to him. This could have only be done by its fangs.

vs 4 then goes further to say that the Maltans SAW the snake hanging on or from Paul's hand. There is no way or even poetic licence that would grant a writer the liberty to express a snake wrapped around a man's hand as it hanging from or on his hand, Which means that gibberish about a snake wrapped around Paul's hand also falls flat in the face of reasoning. I have run a search across many dictionaries and there is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING that indicates that when something hangs on or from something it is wrapped around it- nothing! Virtually all the dictionaries I checked now said there must be a slope (downward slope), an inclination, something showing declivity etc. This means that (just like suicide victims or those executed by the gallows) the body must 'hang' or be free in the air with a downward inclign. If per adventure a man is wrapped around a tree branch by a rope one would not be permitted to claim that he hung on the tree. Better renderings for that will be that he was tied there or that he was wrapped there. But when you hear that someone hung on a tree, you know he must have dangled or occupied a position showing him in the air but tilted downwards.

Now the bible says the Maltans SAW the snake HANGING (they didn't assume) and that it FASTENED itself on Paul's hand. We can therefore rightly conclude that it used it's fangs to pin or nail itself to Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it dangle right before he shook or brushed it off himself. This can be the ONLY reason why they concluded he was going to swell and die and also why they got shocked that he didn't. Moreso, This is why they retracted their words that he was a murderer faced by karma and called him a god.

As for those who claim that Vipers bite sharply and release immediately it is not ALWAYS the case. Sometimes, they could bite and hold on for long (if encountering a small prey). And this can be applied to Paul's case because the width of his hand or wrist (around which the snake bit him) is sizeable compared to a vipers regular prey. Even if that was not the case we have to take ONLY what the scriptures say which is: that they SAW the snake HANGING on Paul's hand.

Concerning the use of suffer or felt by different translations the word is better described as felt. Paul felt no harm. Which means the snake should have caused him harm but Paul did not FEEL it. That was the miracle. If we are to debate based on different translations then the argument is DOA because other translations used bite or that the snake latched itself on Paul's hand. Both words connote the same thing- fangs were used and as such immediate pain should have been felt but Paul felt nothing and by so doing, confirmed that Jesus promise in Luke 10:19 and Mark 15 weren't figurative but REAL and LITERAL.

If you want to keep arguing about it and lying to yourselves to accomodate your unbelief, feel free. I have rested my case on this issue.

Lobeez:
No, the viper took off na after biting him to summon another venom

Gombs:
Quit the sidestepping. What prompted Paul to shake off the viper? Was Paul scared or in Pain? You said self defense? Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha

Self defense means the snake was attacking, no? You don catch yourself by yourself. Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha


Work waiteth for me. See you in some hours time

Gombs:
I know, was trying to help your comprehension skills, if any! Now, let's read what your favourite Gills wrote:



http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/mark/1.htm

Now from the above enlarged, Paul has the Spirit of God, and the nature of the Second Adam, why then did he shake off into the fire a snake that was just hugging his hand? Was he scared? Or in pain?

Gombs:
No wahala!

For forty wilderness days and nights he was tested by Satan. Wild animals were his companions, and angels took care of him.

Gombs:
No problem

[NLT] Mark 1:13 where he was tempted by Satan for forty days. He was out among the wild animals, and angels took care of him.

Gombs:
Now, that wasn't hard, was it?

Now you are about to know he did. You can see that he as the second Adam, did what the 1st was supposed to do, all, and much more

[KJV] Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

If you disagree, fine! No problem

Gombs:
Bobo, are you saying Jesus NEVER DID so? A yes or no would be great!

Gombs:
So, Paul was the prey?

Dear Lord!
Nat Geo wild should have educated you. So a viper bites a rabbit and holds on to it, to maintain grip? Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaai ;