₦airaland Forum

BabaGnoni was sarcastic in the only thread that was ever produced by another dumbo Gombs.
Burden of proof remains with the one making a claim so Trustman or whoever silence is no proof of nothing. Logic 101. I have been called Shndemidemi here by Gombs and I felt like I could not dignify his low IQ by refuting or agreeing with him. Silence means a lot more than guilt sir!

Image123:
Actually, we have Gnoni here and tman's silent witness. Not forgetting Bidam, even me i think i recall the thing. One sisterme handle was also saying something similar.

Nobody could provide evidence for this and the ever moronic mbaemeka claimed that the actual thread was lost when NL server was hacked meaning all we have is your imagination of the same. If you want to finger somebody, come up with proof or shut up and apologize.

nlMediator:
Again, you jump in to display your ignorance, as you did with the Eve-Serpent issue, from which you silently withdrew with egg on your face when the person you were defending could not categorically deny the charge. In this case, it's your friend that employed that logic of silence in his WOF thread. So everything you said here applies to him.

Image123,
Pardon my intrusion but do you have a specific reason for not doing Firstfruits?
At my church, this is seldom preached and am talking of 10 straight years and I don't recall anything like Firstfruits. On personal level, I have interacted with a few friends who give their first salary as Firstfruits. Am hearing it here on NL of January Salary being Firstfruits. For me, whenever I get extra income I raise my normal offering.

Image123:
i don't do firstfruits. Nothing wrong with anyone that does it though. It's a type of offering.

I give it to you for being ahead of me in spinning yarns to cover your lies. Why it don't surprise me is because it is the norm at CE. They lied about the impending divorce until it could not be hid. Did you ever pray that the marriage fail not? How could you when all those were lies of lucifer?

I can assure you that you will grow old but growing up am not sure.
Where and when did I claim that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?

mbaemeka:
I was 100 steps ahead of you again as usual. I never referred to you as an intelligent being of any sort. I feel for the people who work for you (if we can go by anything you say). You cannot make an honest penny in your entire God-forsaken life.

Did Calvin teach that blood comes from the mother and not the father?
If he did, I would not call that boneheaded since he was hundreds of years behind us. You on the other hand, are only fit for parroting garbage with eloquent incoherence. The saving grace is you are not alone, Pat Robertson recently claimed that you can catch Aids by using towels in Africa, Uganda or something

mbaemeka:
Boring and disjointed. Even your memory is nothing to write home about. You already called me a calvinist or do you require the same verbatim quote again? And even after I show it to you, you would keep asking me the same questions like a jilted troll. Groupie.

mbaemeka,
Here is a snippet from John Wenham's Easter Enigma;
http://www.graceelgin.org/documents/EasterEnigma2.pdf

I would have mailed you my copy but the book I bought back in 2004 was destroyed when my house flooded. Water ran out and I left some taps opened, I came back in the evening only to find my house with about 5 centimeters of water. I lost my beloved Enigma but I narrowly escaped electrocution.

Remember you don't harmonize Jesus' birth with Malachi's Elijah just because they are separated by a mere leaf, you harmonize related accounts or events. Puny brains easily overheat. Watch out

Calvin was a great man, you should read his Institutes some day. He had the character and brains, it would b highly offensive to his legacy calling you Calvin or Calvinist. What you clearly are is a an arrogant shameless liar who has actually beaten Satan the father of lies in his game of accusing our brethren. I pray you grow out of it as you mature. I badly hope it is a teenage proclivity

mbaemeka:
Bla bla bla. You are my groupie that's what you are. Any day you don't mention me on NL you have failed in your duties as one. Don't feel jilted. The privilege is afforded to an exclusive preserve.

Don't forget to call me a calvinist too. I will like to see your friends publicly rebuke you for that.

I apologize to all intelligent primates for confusing you for one of them

You have ZERO evidence on BabaGnoni and your imaginary Eve-sex romping reason being NL was hacked
You have ZERO evidence on on your Paul-rebuked-Peter-in-Galatia reason being I edited' it out but not before you 'quoted' me yet still you don't have the quote

Gombs beats you in offering a half-hearted apology when cornered, otherwise you are all small boys in your thinking. It is sad that human traditions have reduced you into this; unintelligent petty liars.

Once again, when and where did I claim that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?
Burden of proof remains on the one making the allegation not me but I had noted that WOFers especially the moronic ones have a tendency of attempting to shift this responsibility to those who question them

mbaemeka:
Save the super story. I quoted your post verbatim- there was no paraphrasing. Let that "non-puny brain" of yours get to work by proof-reading one of the posts I directed at you. Your post is there. If you also have any iota of honesty you would apologize for belaboring the questions you have asked me knowing that I had responded to them since yesterday.

You are clinging to hot air, you want to catch me in error so I can back off from pointing out your unintelligent lies. Post all my posts her but I wil not back off. You need to realize that you are dealing with a man not a kid and am least intimidated by your private curses nor fickle attempts at blackmail. You have fatally failed with your double ascension theory and now you are onto the blood of Jesus. Keep digging puny brains

You adduce evidence NOT by paraphrasing off your rear end but by posting the very post I made or a quote of the same. That way others reading this thread can refer to the quote for themselves instead of trusting the memory of a goD before whole Christ must kneel and beg to take home.

mbaemeka:
Mr "there-is-nothing-like-without-shedding-of-blood-there-is-no-forgiveness-of-sins" I made a post to you on the matter and I showed you your quote. So save the theatrics for the employees you have and beat it!

Mbaemeko,
I demand you provide proof of your claims that I posted or insinuated that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia and not Antioch as recorded in Galatians 2 failure to which I demand an unconditional apology.

Failure to this, it will be clear before all that you are a serial liar, who the father of all lies is,and I will not hesitate to remind you this as long as I run into you on this site. You also stand condemned before God for LYING

mbaemeka:
*ignored*

How many seconds would it take you to dig up your own post on this thread that's barely 72 hours?
You are shamelessly dishonest. You won't pull the thread because it is nonexistent and unlike the hacking phoney story, this is inexcusable. Grown ups take responsibility for their words. You are everything but that

mbaemeka:
*Ignored*

Post your quote of my post before editing and grow up and learn to tell decent lies. It don't matter what everyone thinks of here, what matters is the contents you post here. They range from stupid to heretical. You are just good at regurgitating Oyaks nonsense without thinking.

mbaemeka:
Who is this child? Go through my posts from the get-go. I have been saying it since. You who claims to "comprehend things and read the words instead of the spaces with his non-puny brain" should be shamefaced that you are just grasping it. Those who know me in person will almost unanimously vote me as the least likely with a puny brain. I am putting this out to you since we are in the season of telling people we are millionaires or employers of labor.

Post your quote of my post BEFORE editing. Or you edited that too? You are an overgrown baby, a Christ Embassy extremist who would gladly lie and kill for your goD

Don't inject Christ ascension here and thereby catch many by 'surprise' Christ ascended to heaven 40 days AFTER resurrection. The Sunday ascension is hare-brained attempt at theology

mbaemeka:
I gave you your quote and you asked me for the link to it probably because you edited the post forgetting that I had already quoted you before you did so. I even gave you a lifeline by telling you to claim that was not what you meant by your post. I didn't use any one post to paint you as a scripture illiterate. You have done so consistently through your posts. You foolhardily claimed that Jesus didn't take his blood to the Most holy place in heaven and when I showed you the scriptures in Hebrews you termed it a "pentecostal heresy". The same person who said "remission of sins had nothing to do with the shedding of blood". You are painting your scriptural incapacitations all on your own.

goD mbaemeka,
So all we have are your MEMORY? How convenient! And that you took all this long to recall that! Puny brained goD

My post about Paul rebuking Peter are ON this thread, where did I say that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?

mbaemeka:
You don't seem to understand what is going on bro. The sore loser isn't denying the accusations- he is asking for the link. Why? because the link got lost when NL was hacked. If he claims he never made the statements then we need not wait for the devil himself- the father of lies, for he is fully manifest in anyone who can make such barefaced lies. We can ask Bidam and I believe even Trustman was on the said thread. If my memory serves me well Trustman tried to correct him to no avail. In the other WOF thread or so, Bidam challenged him with the same fact and the "thing" corrected him by saying "I didn't say Eve slept with Satan" he meant "the serpent" and he even thanked me for properly quoting him. Now challenged with his crimes against the scriptures in front of his friends, he wants to deny the rank heresies he spewed thinking it made him a maverick. Hopeless joke.

We can't sacrifice malice and false allegations at the expense of finishing Midas
If Candour is on point, then please admit that you have ZERO evidence linking BabaGnoni to the Eve-serpent sex and apologize to his person. When will you ever get humble enough to admit to faults and apologize? And if you can't admit to such obvious errors, will you admit to doctrinal errors when cornered?

Gombs:
Yeah... you're on point. Now, this is the fourth time I've said let's move on, but eve, snake, WoF were all preferred at the moment!

kiddo,
you called me Shindemdem or something. Do I presume that vooks is shindemidemi because I never denied?
You can't possibly compound your dumbness with this idiocy

mbaemeka claimed that I had posted that Paul corrected Peter in Galatia. When I challenged him to back up his claim, he dithered. That is a MINOR mistake but I never did it and he used it to paint me as scripture-illiterate. Is this some self defence stuff you are taught at Christ Embassy, maligning your opponents?

Gombs:
Aii bro
But BabaGnoni didn't refute the claim on the thread, rather got nannymcphee in a slap mode! I felt her fury bro

If I was congenially obtuse and hopelessly brainwashed with Oyaks BS I could see it I agree

mbaemeka:
If you could read you would have seen it.

You know why they say about fools? The fewer words they utter, the more intelligent they appear

Proverbs 17:28 (KJV)
28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise:
and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

Gombs has taken an oath of silence. Gladly join him and save face o goD mbaemeko

mbaemeka:
You make me laugh. I can take you to places in your bible that you have read for days and spin you with them. As per 'puny brains' let me join you laughing hard to that joke

I'd leave it there for now since it seems you are indeed a newbie.

Let me help you out a little. Look for a thread called "the Falsehoods of Paul" and see how my ability to merge Acts and Galatians helped enlighten a few people whose brains although puny, will make yours appear microscopic if juxtaposed.

Sir,
With all due respect, Hagin went further than mentioning it; he denounced it, otherwise it would be hard to rationalize the man teaching ANY form of Firstfruits where all he mentions about them is AGAINST. If he sought to correct the application OR administration of the doctrine like he does to some extent on tithing, I would have expected some form of formation of the same

mbaemeka:
Certainly you and Hagin are right in the sense that there was not a mention of the word firstfruits as related to money or financial givings in the NT. But the word (or compound word as the case maybe) 'firstfruits' actually means the 'first' from both NT and OT accounts alike and that is the PRINCIPLE (not doctrine) that some of us applied to Proverbs 3:9.

Also I believe Hagin gave money as his firstfruits but he didn't teach it as a doctrine like one will teach Baptisms or Laying on of hands. He probably practiced giving firstfruits with the same mentality those that give 90% of their incomes have I.e he practiced it based on his convictions about giving and not because any law said so.

Also, I disagree with the idea of it being taught as a doctrine when it clearly isn't even as I disagree with the notion that it is Mosaic in form and practice. Abel gave firstfruits to God. God asked Abraham for his 'firstfruits' of some sorts (Isaac), Jesus was God's firstfruit, King Mesha gave his firstfruit (his son) to God and it was honoured. I believe it is just a principle like when people give gifts to their parents even if the said Parents are far richer than their kids.

That's my take.

This is a public forum...only your thought will I desist from commenting on. Anything you post is game

Gombs:
Vooks and lobeez, I have no reasonable reason to speak to you now. Your dishonesty, poor reading and comprehension ability (lobeez) and insensitivity to people's livelihood, (vooks) are not encouraging to continue a discussion with you both. I humbly announce I will not discuss with you both or engage your posts. I humbly ask you don't quote me or direct a question to me, if you do, I'd ignore them. Feel free to troll .

Candour! I wish some guys on the other side of WoF, would learn from you.

Enter the Mother of conjectures.
ANYTHING you do to 'merge' I can easily with scriptures disprove. Jerome was here before you but unlike you, he bowed to common sense. He thought Peter was not the same Cephas who denied Christ thrice! You merge related events not Pentecost and circumcision of Jesus Christ.

You may try and merge resurrection appearances and watch your double ascension theory fall flat. I highly recommend a book, The Easter Enigma. It will prevent your puny brains from overheating trying to work it out all by yourself

mbaemeka:
Ask politely and I would teach you. Luke wrote Acts and Paul wrote Galatians. To get thr full picture of the whole occurrence we would need to merge both accounts. I know you are not well versed in the scriptures because if you were you would have known that. I can show you many instances between both books that[b] if one doesn't merge them properly each story will look like a contradiction[/b]. Let me show the one concerning what is being discussed.

Read Galatians 2 from verse 1-14 and take note of when the meeting in Jerusalem ended. I think it was around verse 5-9 or so. You would see that whilst Paul verbally narrated the minutes of the meeting to the church in Antioch, Silas and Judas came with a written letter which they read out (Acts 15). You would tell from Paul's account in Galatians 2 that the sent men from James like Silas and co could have only come well after he and Barnabas did and also well after Peter arrived.

Don't be incorrigible. Learn to study properly before posting.

Sure, God HATES a lying tongue and you keep on lying

mbaemeka:
I am ignoring this post because I don't want to spend today apologising to God. Let me just chip in at this juncture that I am very sure you read the spaces in between words and nothing more. Maybe someone with more patience than me will answer the question on the serpent and your post which I already showed to you. As per how many times Jesus resurrected tell that to Mary.

candour,mbaemeka,
I haven't read Hagin in a long time and I was looking for that smoking gun, that doctrine/ practice he is so much against yet at some point he taught it. Looks like if mbaemeka is sober for once about the conclusion he draws from all the books he read on Hagin that he offered Firstfruits,and the easily provable denouncing of the same in Midas Touch,then Firstfruits is that gun.

Candour:
Ok. Actually, No new testament scripture talks about first fruits in relation to material giving to God or anybody. (i stand to be corrected)



at the bolded, do you have any scripture in the NT to confirm that? If you decide to apply the Mosaic law and Solomon's admonition on first fruits to yourself, it's very well within your rights after all, there are a lot of practices from Mosaic law and the OT which some people have picked personal doctrines from which i trust you and i would agree has no relevance to a Christian. What i can't find a support for is first fruit as a doctrine for a Christians.

If Hagin affirms that first fruits has nothing to do with financial giving or money in the NT, then if i agree with you that he still went ahead to give first fruits, in what form then did he give the first fruits?





@the bolded, that's not the only thing he said. see the full statement ''[size=16pt]The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers.[/size]''

Hagin is saying ''Nothing in the new testament talks about first fruits as a form of financial giving, support for ministers or even money at all''

I'm not against folks deciding to practice it. What i rebel against is preaching it from the pulpit as a christian doctrine. It is Mosaic in form and practice. It will be much better if Christians are told this truth and i trust that's what Hagin said in the book.

Repeat, who said Eve had sex with the serpent? Where is that?
Unlike you I read lines not empty spaces between them.
If you must know, am fully circumcised but that's nothing

You can paste my post here where I said thus. The only reason you haven't done so is because you sought to deflect from your Oyaks stupid theories by FALSELY accusing me of an error.

Jesus ascended ONCE after resurrection. The rest is fiction. We can get to that but first paste my thread where I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. You are a dirty dishonest negro fit only for regurgitating Christ Embassy manuals

mbaemeka:
Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? Didn't you see the person in question concede (albeit subtly) that he made such statements? Didn't you see Bidam even go as far as mentioning that Trustman even tried to call the accused to order in the said thread? How ignorant can you really be.

And as per the quote, I already made it. What's left for you to do is to claim it means something else and then let it rest. You have nothing to say save conjectures. I am sure you have now accepted the "pentecostal heresy" that Jesus went to the Holiest place in heaven with his blood. The last time we discussed, you blurted some incoherent nonsense out and even your clique were forced to leave you shamefaced and alone.

I think like other physical faculties, thinking is unevenly distributed and I have prize evidence here

You are just kicking the can further down the road. What is the basis for ASSUMING that 'other Jews' MUST mean Jews sent from Jerusalem? We're there not Jews in Antioch together with Paul?

Now, you are fantasizing about imaginary letters from James and claiming the same letter to be what Paul and Barnbas were entrusted with in Acts 15? I think if there is a goD in Nigeria it must be Oyaks and you would kill for him not just lie.

Acts 15:25 (KJV)
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul

Verse 27
(KJV) We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth

Verse 30-34
(KJV) So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. 32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. 33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. 34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. 35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Can you explain to me how and why with evidence (and Rhapsodies/Oyaks BS don't count) you believe Paul got to Anioch AHEAD of the VERY letter he was commissioned to deliver there? If 'certain came from James' are those sent to deliver the epistle,why would Paul regard himself as not part of that delegation yet Acts 15:25 is clear he was part of it?

Am still waiting for you to apologize and withdraw the false allegations against the person of vooks regarding the claim that I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. But you are exempted if Naija goDs don't apologize to mortals

mbaemeka:
This takes the cake for cow dung of the year!!! You have what it takes to give Kevin Hart a run for his money. How you couldn't understand Verse 14 from 13-12 clearly shows how bereft of pure reasoning you are. And to think of the fact that you're an employer of labour. Hmmmmmm, God is a good God.

Mr Man the 'they that walked not uprightly ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH' in V14 referred to the Other Jews in V13 as well as Barnabas and the same lot were described as certain that came from James in V12. How can we tell? Because according to Paul a) they knew the truth already since they attended the meeting in Jerusalem b) [b]they brought the letter to the church in Antioch [/b]c) they pretended in public but in secret still held unto their pharasical beliefs d) they were JEWS like Peter so his antics swayed them. So what are you on about? Paul corrected them all not just Peter. The reason he singled Peter out in his letter was to show the Galatians how that even someone as "important" as Peter was once guilty of the same error that 'men from James' were guilty of.

It seems you have nothing else to say. So you are trying to clutch to save face. You can also choose to engage me without injecting CEC or any names into the post or I'd just ignore you.

Am really liking the way WOFers shift the burden of proof;
-' nowhere are we commanded NOT to tithe therefore tithing is cool'
-'nowhere are we commanded NOT to command Angels therefore we can command them'

But this line of reasoning can be applied to so many things and lead to absurd practices being incorporated into Chriatianity. For instance,
-nowhere are we told NOT to pray facing Jerusalem,
-nowhere are we told NOT to offer free will offerings that have nothing to do with sin (why not offer Bulls in this manner)

A more sane approach should be dissecting all scriptures with Angels and observing their manner of interaction with God's people whether in NT or OT.
1. Are there incidences of angels being put under man's command?
2. Do we have records outside the scriptures of the primitive church where this was practiced?
3. When FIRST did this doctrine of commanding Angels emerge?

WinsomeX:
The appropriate question is: Is there a scripture that says Christians should command angels?

As for your "overlap" in doctrine and practices with Aladura, I hope now you are getting the picture of our grouse with WOF? Christianity does not "overlap" with demonic practices. We practice the BOOK!

No offence to employees, we all were there once. Business is where the money @ and that jab was directed at Gombs for obvious reasons; he brought up his job unnecessarily. Let's just say that my main thrust was am jobless, unemployed unlike Gombs but deep in the money and very free. I never brag about it, in fact I introduce myself as jobless

My employees, I encourage them to be faithful while under me but to look outside me. I have two already self-employed and best of buddies btw.

Lobeez:
Hey vooks, the statement above is childish and very unnecessary.
It makes me wonder what kind of boss you are. Imagine if folks under your payroll get to read this, how do you think they would react to it?

By the grace of God, some of us are CEO's and still have a paid employment.
I double as an employee and a business owner. Being an employee does not and has not reduced my creativity, instead, it has launched me to greater dimensions.

There are perks I get from being an employee now, that you may not necessarily enjoy and if you want I can list them for you.

If we were all CEO's, you'd probably not get some of the basics you enjoy as a person.

Learn from this:

AM just feeding you your garbage. You overused GLOAT, I served it right back. Am that kind

Why do you need a pastor to tell you the obvious? DO you suspend thinking when you go to church? Self employment is better than employment and it is an opportunity to create employment. Very few people rake millions in employment, probably in not-for profit organizations or those in extremely specialized jobs such as rocket scientists. But since we all can't be self-employment or we may not be bold enough to venture out, or we are still gaining skills, wage-slaving will just do

Gombs:
Gloat about suits? Did you just learn a new word? Obviously you just did! Let me school you
To Gloat means to exhibit a conspicuous sense of self-satisfaction, often at an adversary's misfortune. Can you see how senseless your posts are? How did I gloat about suits? Does that your sentence still make any sense to you now? You just keep getting sillier with your posts. Why?

When a pastor preaches the above bold, you will be the first that'd run down here and create threads, plus videos. So, we all should work on our terms? True freedom? You hypocrisy is legendary. Brains? You brains? In the words of Nlmediator, only a loving God can make someone as you rich with your sense of reasoning and mammoth ineptitude!

I don go work jare! See y'all in some hours time.

Cerelac for babes. You gloat about your suits and I returned favor. True freedom is working in your own terms. That's DOMINION, not answering to guys you don't like doing what you never went to school for for much less than you really believe you are worth.
I pray you get there one day. It takes boldness and some serious brains though

[quote author=Gombs post=27484819][/quote]

It's been years since I left employment and i gave out all my suits. I work in my own terms, am my boss. Wage slaving is for sissies and the utterly un-creative or babes

So my dress-sense on suits is Jurassic.

In one sentence, what is Hagin's stance on Firstfruits?

Gombs:
I'm more interested in your sanity than your new ID. I won't go round circles, flip 4 pages back. This was how I knew you were shedemidemi.

1. Going round circles
2. Eternally confused on verses.
3. You used the same lines you used with your shedemidemi account
4. Senseless questions
5. Poor ability to hold a brilliant discussion.

Now, if you don’t mind, I've got to go prepare for work. Help me decide, an ash suit with sky blue shirt, red and white dotted tie, or a black suit with sky blue shirt and white and blue stripped tie?

If the audience were as obtuse as you are on Firstfruits, the book was in vain

Gombs:
Now that we've come this far, mfrom the book, irrespective of the derailing the thread has endured, plus those who use extra monikers, but their line of reasoning betrays them, can we all agree that the book by Hagin was very needful at a time as these, even though the anti WoF folks seem to be innperfect churches and hence Hagin wrote the book for churches like CEC, LFC, RCCG, etc?

I'd put up chapter 9 today (hopefully), it'd then remain one last chapter. It was not surprising anti WoF guys har nothing to say about Hagin's 24 principles from the Epistles regarding money, givin and receiving-why? It caught them pants down

Am more interested in your maturity than your ID
What was Hagin's stance on firstfruits?

Gombs:
Ah! A confirmation! Vooks is shedemidemi QED