₦airaland Forum

And what have you to offer except turning a blind eye to heresies?

nlMediator:
Exactly, my major beef with them. Nothing to offer. Somebody is out there preaching to souls headed to hell, and they'll complain he's wearing an expensive suit. Somebody prays for the sick to get well, they complain the healings are fake. Why don't they go and do it the right way themselves? In all of these, has anybody heard them share stories of many souls they have won? Or how they have helped the sick do better, and perhaps save them from going to the fake healers? No, it's always criticize and complain and feel good. What value are they really adding to the Kingdom of God?

Strong meat is not for fetuses and babes

Gombs:
Vooks and shedemidemi have a lot in common. I hope I'm wrong! The both hardly make sense. I hope they are not same folks, though I'm 60% certain.

You are the mother and father of all conjectures. Can't point to a thread on Eve-had-sex-with-the-serpent yet you label anti-WOFers as hypocritical for NOT rebuking one of 'their own' who claimed such. But Winsomex was spot on. It is a last resort when you are cornered. I never knew hallucinations could be a defense mechanism

And while at it, point where and when I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia or be a man for once and apologize for this false accusation against vooks

mbaemeka:
He takes only after drumb with his conjectures. He will raise a notion by himself and tag it as a WOF belief then criticise the notion and begin to gloat.

How do medical science tie in with divine-health bliss?
They don't teach divine-banking,Law or transport but they insist that a believer can and should be disease free by just raising their faith and knowing and confessing healing verses. Why go for medical procedures while you can just pull levers and receive your healing ANY time?

nlMediator:
Either your ignorance is oozing out or you're talking utter rubbish. WOF is not against medicine. What is wrong in God using pagan doctors? He uses pagan taxi drivers, bankers, lawyers, techies, etc. to help His children. What's different about the doctor that would make us reject him while accepting the rest?

Utter unnecessary verbiage

Galatians 2:12-14King James Version (KJV)

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


The question is,
How do you read THEM ALL in verse 14 to means the Jews from Jerusalem of verse 12?

THEM is a pronoun referring to some plural noun mentioned earlier. What leap of Christ Embassy grammar or logic do you employ to IGNORE the most obvious reference to the immediate THEY of the same verse, skip the OTHER JEWS of verse 13 and land at CERTAIN THAT CAME FROM JAMES in verse 12, while ignoring ALL other plural nouns of the verse namely, Gentiles and THEM of Circumcision?


Am still waiting for you to paste a link not a paraphrase of where I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. But of course you have a policy of not naming names so am sure you won't. I have evidence of your claims to immortality should you deny Jesus consent to take you home. I quoted you lest you go back and correct yourself. Please reciprocate.

goD mbaemeka, you are a highly intelligent primate unlike you know who and you know how to steer clear of controversies. I have observed your loud silence on Hagin's position on Firstfruits. You don't want to contradict and confuse your dumb church-mate with facts, don't want to break ranks . But you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong and your mentor, Spirit baptized or not is also wrong in their 'private-rebuke-before-leaders' theory. This is not supported by grammar nor logic but is a mere convenient doctrine to shield these men from scrutiny,rebuke and criticism. You don't need PhD in Koine Greek to understand verse 12-14. You don't even need to appeal to and recite the entire Acts or church history to see the obvious. You don't even need spiritual discernment or revelation; it is PLAIN and CLEAR to all. All you need to buy your theory is to arm yourself with tons of presumption and then read this into the text. You are embarrassing yourself

mbaemeka:
Read slowly, you would learn a few things. Acts 2 the AMP version.

22 Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole church, resolved to select men from among their number and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, [both] leading men among the brethren, and sent them.

Question, if the men were sent with Paul and Barnabas did they actually travel with both men? NO

23 With [them they sent] the following letter: The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings:

They sent them with a letter that was to be read in front of all the brethren in ANTIOCH, Syria and Cilicia.

30 So when [the messengers] were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having assembled the congregation, they delivered the letter.

Proof that indeed the letter was delivered and in the presence of all- no skirmishes recorded thus far.

31 And when they read it, the people rejoiced at the consolation and encouragement [it brought them].

Virtually everyone knew about the letter in Antioch.

So how do we factor in Galatians 2? We can do so by establishing the following facts:

1. Peter must have arrived at Antioch before those sent by James. b) those sent by James got into Antioch after Paul and Barnabas had arrived there- they didn't travel together.
2. These men must have been leaders because James sent only leaders from the entire congregation in Jerusalem.
3. This must have happened after the Acts 15 encounter because Paul called them hypocrites seeing that THEY HAD ESTABLISHED CONVICTIONS from the meeting in Jerusalem only for them to arrive at Antioch and act contrary to what was agreed.
4. The circumcision party and men from James are one and the same.

11 But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned.
12 For up to the time that certain persons came from James, he ate his meals with the Gentile [converts]; but when the men [from Jerusalem] arrived, he withdrew and held himself aloof from the Gentiles and [ate] separately for fear of those of the circumcision [party].

Peter knew about the agreement in Jerusalem and he conducted himself rightly till the sent men came.

13 And the rest of the Jews along with him also concealed their true convictions and acted insincerely, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy (their example of insincerity and pretense).

What were their true convictions? The agreement in Jerusalem. The same one's they had read out to the WHOLE CONGREGATION according to Acts 15.

14 But as soon as I saw that they were not straightforward and were not living up to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) before everybody present, If you, though born a Jew, can live [as you have been living] like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you dare now to urge and practically force the Gentiles to [comply with the ritual of Judaism and] live like Jews?

They had just delivered the letter to the church but then behind the scenes they acted otherwise. Paul saw the hypocrisy and corrected the chief culprit in front of EVERYBODY PRESENT- proving it was not to all and sundry.

Pray tell me, how could the rebuke have been to the hearing of the whole church or gentiles or what not when according to Acts 15 the letter was delivered to the whole church already? And if the letter was delivered to the whole church when did the men from James and Peter have the time to act hypocritically in their presence? If they did not act hypocritically in their presence (presence of the whole church), then that leaves us to conclude that the group present when Paul spoke to Peter were the leaders sent from James and this makes sense because they were the one's to bring the agreement to the church (Acts 15) only to act otherwise (Gal 2:11-14).

So kindly tell me what you are trying to say. Is it that you cannot comprehend how that the people who joined Peter in the hypocrisy were the same men that came from James as well as Barnabas (Paul's companion)? Or can you show us how

1. All the Jews in Antioch
2. Gentiles
3. James men
4. The circumcision (Outright nonsense! for the circumcision referred to the same men from James)
5. the whole church in Antioch factored into the them all. And if you cannot do it, can we also conclude that you have made another brain fart by attempting to gloat over an issue that you clearly do not understand?

As per the evidence that you said Paul corrected Peter in front of the Galatian commoners I will show it to you and expect you to apologize for either poorly phrasing your words or simply mistyping. Here is:



I believe a better way of putting what you meant is "Does it bother you that Paul had no qualms publicizing this event to the Galatia commoners long after it occurred in Antioch".

Establish criminal negligence and haul the negro to jail right after suing for COMPENSATION and drive him bankrupt.That's infinitesimally better except this is Nigeria

I would appreciate if you pasted your sources because am still reeling in shock over the depths of Satan some have descended

TheShopKeeper:
BE ONE OF THE 8500!!!!!!!

In April 2010, EIWM took possession of a Dassault Falcon 900 B. It is named The Weapon of Prosperity II (The Citation III that EIWM currently own is called The Weapon of Prosperity I). This aircraft is a weapon to destroy poverty in the Body of Christ by allowing my team and I to take this message of prosperity to the four corners of the earth.
There are so many people around the earth that know Jesus died for their sins (2 Corinthians 5:17), but don’t know that Jesus also died for their prosperity (2 Corinthians 8:9). God has given me a mandate to take this unique and rare anointing around the world to break the bondage of poverty. I’m also a pastor of a local church. The Weapon of Prosperity II allows me to do both assignments with efficiency and with the greatest amount of affect.

On my way to see this aircraft, the Lord spoke to me and this is what He said:
God:“This plane will be a DIVINE MARK in your ministry! You have been patient, so now your time has come!“
Me: “God, I’ll go anywhere you want me to go!”
God: “REALIZE THIS: I am sending you to the nations with a special Word from me. Get Ready! Big doors are about to open supernaturally. All that you have preached is about to begin to start manifesting. You’ve been faithful over your small jets. Now I am about to give you a bigger one. So receive it as a “Gift With A Mission! GET READY TO RECEIVE! Immediately, I knew that plane was now a part of the Kingdom of God.

God told me what amount to put down on the loan. I had more than that but I have learned to obey God. So I put that amount down along with the debt free Weapon of Prosperity I (The Citation III that EIWM currently owns).
I didn’t know why God didn’t want me to put more money down on the aircraft until spending time with Him in prayer about it. Now I know why God wanted me to put down a certain amount. With the economy in the condition that it’s in, those that know the laws of sowing and reaping are looking for good soil to plant seed. The mission of the Weapon of Prosperity II makes taking part in this debt cancellation a good place to sow seed.

Matthew 13:8
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
There was a balance of $8.5 million dollars on the loan. If 8,500 people give $1000, that would pay the loan off. There are 8,058 spots (This number will change daily!) left to get in on this opportunity to sow into the debt cancellation of the Weapon of Prosperity II. 442 people have already committed to this project. If you are one of the 8o500, you will have seed in good ground ready to receive a harvest.

Here’s the wonderful news! You can give it all at once or pledge the amount you want to give. I’m allowing pledges because it gives everyone a chance to get involved. You may have never given a large seed, but here is your opportunity! On top of that, the deadline for pledge completion is 24 months from the date you pledge. That’s 2 years from now!

That means, if you pledge $1000, you can sow into The Weapon of Prosperity II with only $41.66/month and as each month passes you will have significant seed in the ground. You don’t have to stop at $1000. If you want to give more, you can. Look at the examples below:
If I pledge :
The monthly breakdown is
$1000 $41.66/month $1250 $52.08/month $1500 $62.50/month $2000 $83.33/month $2500 $104.16/month $5000 $208.33/month $7500 $312.5/month $10000 $416.66/month $15000 $625/month $20000 $833.33/month I want to use this giving opportunity to train my partners in receiving! Once again, I’m allowing pledges to give you a chance to give towards this debt cancellation, which puts you in a position to receive.

A harvest needs 2 things: good soil and seed! I already know what’s going to happen to you! As soon as you purpose in your heart to give, God will begin to send seed to your hands. That’s 2 Corinthians 9:7-10. It reads:
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
8And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
10 Now He (God) that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness

Once you begin to put that seed in the ground, God will start you on a process of multiplication of seed and fruit (results). Some of you will complete your pledge before the 24-month deadline! If you pledged already and have finished your pledge, you may want to pledge again.
As soon as you point your focus on what God wants, He begins to point His focus on what you want. There will be wonderfully strange ways God begins to put seed into your hands. I’m excited to begin hearing about these adventures in faith. As I said earlier, I want to use this giving opportunity to train you how to receive. I’ll send you a confession that I want you to say at least 3x’s daily. This will cause your thoughts to be right and eliminate every thought that doesn’t agree with your increase. You will begin to see increase immediately because God will begin to send the money your way to fulfill your commitments and cause you to increase!

To join the movement, you can submit your pledge below!

Blessings on Your Life,
Dr. Leroy Thompson Sr.

And of course for consistency sake no names nor threads will be produced

mbaemeka:
No need to play the devil's advocate. Let the culprit deny the "accusations" if they are unsubstantiated along with the one about the Tower of Babel being mythical and many other out-of-thought gaffs and goofs.

goD mbaemeka,
Start by showing WHEN/WHERE I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. Paste it

If you have anything on my debunking of your 'private rebuke infont of leaders' nonsensical and obviously regurgitated theory please respond to that post.

Posted verbatim. They told me repetition is for emphasis

vooks:
Needless diatribe. And you are not honest enough to quote your sources but I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are regurgitating verbatim the very guys you are defending

THEM ALL I have simply identified as ALL those who joined Peter in the hypocrisy.
And are you sure we have Paul's rebuke in its entirety?

Here are all imaginable renderings of verse 14
[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Galatians%202:14[/url]

None come close to propping your phoney theories. You can't possibly use pronoun 'them' or 'they' severally in one sentence and FORCE the second,third....'them' to refer to anything EARLIER than the first. Logic 101. Examples of this.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Acts 2:3 .And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them

Here is mbaemeka' warped illogic (brackets are his);
Galatians 2:14 (NKJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

14 But when I saw that they (Peter and other Jews) were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them (the visiting Jews)all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Do you see how little to no sense that would make? What would drive the reader to conclude that THEM should b identified not with the immediate THEY but with an earlier THEM? Is that logical even by Nigerian Pidgin?

And do you note how many groups have just been mentioned just before verse 14 in v13 and 13? We have the following
1. Them of the Circumcision
2. Gentiles
3. Certain from James
4. Other Jews
What criteria would a reader use to pick 3. and ignore the rest as being referred by the THEM of verse 14?

I like Young's Literal Translation
Galatians 2:14 (YLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter

14 But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?

Peter was rebuked BEFORE everyone. If Paul was more discrete with the rebuke,don't you think he would have resisted divulging this rebuke including the very words he used to the whole world? Supposing mbaemeka deems himself a leader enough to rebuke Oyaks. He does just that very privately in presence of other leaders avoiding the rank and file of the Body of Christ, the babes and fetuses . Then he broadcasts the rebuke and the occasion to the whole world. Does that not defeat the very purpose of being discrete in the first place?

mbaemeka:
My dear, it is the same sweeping delusion all around. Those who see past their noses let the issue rest. The one's with the all too often dumb points kept clutching and I kept wondering if they could actually read. How do I explain the "Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia" to "Yes, I meant Antioch but he wrote it to the Galatians" to "Paul rebuked Peter in front of them all" (them all meaning a drove of people) and when spotted out it mutates to "Paul rebuked Peter in front of Jewish leaders" as though that was not the point that I had been trying to communicate with my very post on the issue. What even makes it worse is that he had the temerity to ask me for my source when I basically summarised Acts 10-15.

If there is a point you want to pass with the Galatians 2:14 reference please be vivid with it while we compare it with all you started with and what I have said all through. Maybe you would finally learn something.

Interesting goDs these are.
1. Digressing (Gombs)
2. Intimidation and blackmail (Gombs again)
3. Playing dumb like Gombs on First-fruits. (Mbaemeka is far more intelligent, won't comment )

Human traditions are powerful; they'd defend them with their very lives but I can see troubled consciences beneath the fake bravado

WinsomeX:
Don't mind them o. It is Bidam's invention which he uses to accuse BabaGnoni when he runs out of gas to prosecute his position on any thread. He has been asked time without number to provide the said quote and he has not been able to.

Unfortunately, mbaemeka has caught the bug.

goD mbaemeka before whom Christ must kneel and BEG to take home lest he lives forever,
Using your heightened spiritual gifts, please discern vooks

Who said Eve had sex with the serpent?

And I noted you could not withstand my wisdom in dividing Galatians 2:14. May be like Jehovah's witnesses you can consult with your higher-ups. That is their last line of defense when cornered.

mbaemeka:
Gombs, I strongly believe Lobeez is SirJohn. Use that insanely intelligent techy mind of yours to prove my hypothesis right

As for the Public rebuke crew. Maybe you should start by telling us how Eve had sex with a serpent. And if you believe she didn't, why not publicly rebuke the oaf that mouthed off such gross inanity?

Am not here to mother you nor offer free comprehension courses sir!

That's a typical inconsistency on WOFers. Always rationalizing their acts when reality shatters their utopia.They don't take medicines because 'by His stripes we are healed' BUT when they do, Jesus is healing them through the medium of pagan medical doctors

nlMediator:
So, what's your point? The view of that WOFer represents WOF? Look, if you want to have a real debate on what's the WOF stance on anything, go to what the leaders have written or said consistently about it. Is it that you attackers are not sufficiently informed about WOF or you read the materials, understand it and still choose mischief? The other time, one of you here was attacking WOF because a girl wrote checks without money in her account to back it - the same thing WOF leaders are against. You guys need to up your game big time. If these are your best shots, we might as well call it a day.

You are a A CERTIFIED full-blown board idio.t for comparing a PM to a private rebuke.
The purpose of warning him is to prevent the existing public information (error) from leaking and be used against him. You did exactly opposite by reminding all of his publicly available confidential details,something you could have avoided by a simple PM

Am all for the most stress free rebuke while your camp has created all imaginable barriers to correcting your goDs including NEVER correcting them, limiting rebuking them to 'leaders' and so forth. I will remind you that Oyaks is divorcing NOW but many in his circles saw it coming and couldn't do nothing because of is very doctrine

Gombs:
Excuse me! A pm? Really? Reading and comprehension problems has been persistent in your camp. If for threads past, vooks still think image123 is feminine or that he was too in a haste to criticise, that he forgot I made the post, then, my friend Babagnoni, I think common sense has failed you too.

I should PM him abi? Now public rebuke did not sound ok as you lot advocate? I was waiting for this moment for someone to remotely him private correction, and here you are, meek and pious. I did not rebuke him, not correct him, I simply wanted to show how reading and comprehension has been in deficiency in your camp. Call the to order, send them a PM.

Thanks. Happy Sunday.

@BabaGnoni,

Thank you for warning me. I salute these 'gorilla' tactics since they prove something. If they were goDs, they would dispatch curses on us 'enemies of the truth'. But they know that's BS and it don't work outside the four corners of their prayer closet.

I had a refreshing debate with a WOFer who tried to convince me that Doctors treats but God heals hence medical science is compatible with divine-health utopia. I needed how satanists and pagans get well in hospitals without ANY healing faith and whether faith was necessary for medical science 'miracles'. She blew a fuse

BabaGnoni:
^^^
a private message (i.e. PM) would have served the purpose

@vooks, don't know why, sometimes they use underhand tactics, dishonestly, like the one done on Goshen360 or Bidam's own, in order to gain advantage(s)

My bad and apologies to image123. A PM could have done the job don't you think so?
You was trying to draw attention to Goshen's private details by pretending to care.
I read from trustman that you went for DrummaBoy with everything you got. In fact I see some negroes mocking Winsomex calling him aka DrummaBoy

The only thing you can mentor me on is being thick and blind whenever I approach painful truth.

PS: What is Hagin's stand on firstfruits?

Gombs:
Are you sure you are ok?


1. Image is not a she
2. If it's the post I made for him to correct, about his addresses and phone number, then, I am most certain, more than ever, that you have reading and comprehension disability.

Image123 is pettiness incarnate. She tried to blackmail Goshen by digging a 2006 thread and reminding him that she now knows him

BabaGnoni:
First he started the goading and spoiling for a fight. Bringing on the thread unrelated things.
Now slyly pretending not to want to derail the thread further.
This is no gentleman but one lacking integrity.
Someone pained and having a score to settle hence the "Good morn. Mr. 'Serpent sleeping with eve heretic" comment
Playing your favorite remark card as usual, always, especially out of desperation.
I doff my hat to you SMH

@trustman, are you minding them, people read and know who instigated etc

This is a public restroom and as such.....


Nice Lord's Day negro

Bidam:
ok.
No one ask you this, Lol, if you are itching for a fight, go visit the tithe threads, thanks for your contribution Mr.vooks.
Have a blessed sunday.

Dedication is a Christian tradition, a LATE introduction like Christmas and tithing. This leaves the manner and the timing of the ceremony discretionary. Actually it is an improvement from Roman Catholic infant baptism but it remains a tradition and nothing else

The difference between tithing and dedication is tithing DIRECTLY helps the powers that be and as such they teach it with rabid vehemence and they use threats and curses of hellfire or poverty to blackmail members into towing the line
They will tell you that it is 'by faith' and 'free' but they don't trust your judgement on the same seeing if you opt against it, they'd miss out on the money!


Tithe collectors are as desperate to get it as to Multilevel marketing guys. They are more interested in your buying not because they are selling superior goods but because they stand to gain much commission from the transaction. Money is a major motive

Bidam:
Luke 2:22-24. "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."


A Baby Dedication is a ceremony in which believing parents, and sometimes entire families, make a commitment before the Lord to submit a child to God's will and to raise that child according to God's Word and God's ways.

Child dedication is the act of giving back to God the gift he has given you as parents. It is an act of worship, thanksgiving, dependence, trust, and commitment. The practice of child dedication has been modeled throughout the Bible.

Now non Presbyterian churches called this child dedication while we see Catholics refer to this as infant baptism,my point of opening this thread is for proponent who are in the campaign of condemning the law of Moses to air their views on this issue.

There is nowhere in scriptures that Paul discussed to the early churches about child dedication but i believe the early church practiced it strictly in principle from the mosaic laws( i stand to be corrected sha) as well as marriages which is also copied from OT scriptures.

The only place i see Paul talked about children is:

Ephesians 6:4:

"fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord." God's instructions are plain.

Since our brothers say tithe is old testament law and should be as such discarded in churches,should child dedication also be discarded in churches? I need you views.

BabaGnoni,
This is so spot on.
The tactic by the way is not a reserve of WOFers but is rampant among cults. Jehovah's Witnesses have a thorough manual on the same. And it gets bad. Even crimes are supposed to be addressed by elders. One only needs to look at the Catholic Church and their perpetual sex scandals usually involving minors.

Understand that whereas now the 'private rebuke by equals' is confined to doctrine and may be conduct, it is equally extended to major crimes. I have observed TB Joshua hooligans cursing those seeking to have TB held accountable for criminal negligence. When rumors of Oyaks started, there was vehement denial of the same. Trust me it had nothing to do with faith-speak, hope for the best, but face saving. Am not privy to the man's private life but I can hazard that this teaching had something to do with it; nobody saw nor heard evil till it was too big to be hid. Remember even spouses are usually too immature to rebuke the MoG.

This is pathetic self-preservation mechanism that has caused the name of Jesus to be blasphemed.

BabaGnoni:
It is a small thing ooo, because when we were tackling these things, we were told off because some disapproved of publicly "naming and shaming" sacred cows

OK, we relented, and with some degree of censorship became less severe or intense (i.e. by not being 100% in name mentioning)
but then the disapproval shifted and turned to, it is about dead people, it is about acts involving unknown names, the grotesque or bizarre laughs is unheard of locally, the odd and ludicrous fake healing acts don't happen locally etcetera

Business as usual, WoFs on nairaland (i.e. its officers plus its rank and file) would keep quiet, they would:
1.) turn a blind eye to this and other similar wrong things
2.) look the other way to deliberately ignore something as bad as this that is happening
3.) rather this is covered up and strong on preventing people from telling others what they know about these odd, ludicrous and fake healing acts
4.) ignore behaviours or activities that are wrong, and pretend that what others have noticed is not happening
5.) would do nothing or wouldn't say anything, to stop it or at least warn others about it
6.) ignore evidences or avoid unpleasant facts about it when presented to them
7.) pretend nothing unusual is happening and also pretend all is hunky-dory
8.) fabulate to divert attention away from the exposé, in doing this, trying to get people forget about the exposé and hopefully have it fizzled out.

Any idea what Paul gained in giving his life to Christ?

Bidam:
Lol, quit the snide remarks i am a christian. I never asserted anywhere that christians giving shouldn't be an act of love What i said is clear statement in scripture that giving is reciprocal..whether the folks expect to be rewarded or not is his problem.God clearly said He rewards those who give.

Except you are a coward and you can't admit the obvious; Hagin debunked Firstfruits lies with the contempt they deserve

Gombs:
No internal battles buddy! I'm focused, and sure I'm grounded. Funny you guys call Hagin right in regards firstfruits, and wrong in tithing, right in abuse and false practices, but he's wrong in Jesus' clothing. But me, I endorsed the book all through, and recommending it to others.

Needless diatribe. And you are not honest enough to quote your sources but I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are regurgitating verbatim the very guys you are defending

THEM ALL I have simply identified as ALL those who joined Peter in the hypocrisy.
And are you sure we have Paul's rebuke in its entirety?

Here are all imaginable renderings of verse 14
[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Galatians%202:14[/url]

None come close to propping your phoney theories. You can't possibly use pronoun 'them' or 'they' severally in one sentence and FORCE the second,third....'them' to refer to anything EARLIER than the first. Logic 101. Examples of this.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Acts 2:3 .And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them

Here is mbaemeka' warped illogic (brackets are his);
Galatians 2:14 (NKJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

14 But when I saw that they (Peter and other Jews) were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them (the visiting Jews)all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Do you see how little to no sense that would make? What would drive the reader to conclude that THEM should b identified not with the immediate THEY but with an earlier THEM? Is that logical even by Nigerian Pidgin?

And do you note how many groups have just been mentioned just before verse 14 in v13 and 13? We have the following
1. Them of the Circumcision
2. Gentiles
3. Certain from James
4. Other Jews
What criteria would a reader use to pick 3. and ignore the rest as being referred by the THEM of verse 14?

I like Young's Literal Translation
Galatians 2:14 (YLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter

14 But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?

Peter was rebuked BEFORE everyone. If Paul was more discrete with the rebuke,don't you think he would have resisted divulging this rebuke including the very words he used to the whole world? Supposing mbaemeka deems himself a leader enough to rebuke Oyaks. He does just that very privately in presence of other leaders avoiding the rank and file of the Body of Christ, the babes and fetuses . Then he broadcasts the rebuke and the occasion to the whole world. Does that not defeat the very purpose of being discrete in the first place?

mbaemeka:
Trustman and Vooks

I wish you both will understand Paul. In Acts 10 & 11 the bible says Peter preached and ate with Gentiles, and when Jewish Christians heard this they weren't happy with him and they let him know. Peter defended himself citing that God himself approved of his actions so the Jewish Circumcision group backed down for a while.

Even after that, the Jewish Christians didn't pass the information around that Gentiles were to be saved too, so the rest of the scattered Jewish Christians in and around Antioch et al kept preaching to ONLY Jews- this is how we can tell that the circumcision group didn't totally accept what Peter had said to them earlier.

News began to filter through in Jerusalem that alot of Jews in Antioch believed the message of the gospel and became converted so the leadership sent Barnabas to go there to restructure and reorganise them properly. Barnabas, seeing that he needed someone who could penetrate such a Gentile society without much fuss decided to look for Paul in Tarsus (because Paul was eloquent and well versed in Greek philosophy). They preached there for about a year to both Jews and Gentiles.

It was in Antioch that a prophecy was given about an impending famine so the brethren therein raised money to send to the brethren in Judea/ Jerusalem and Paul and Barnabas were the one's trusted with the duty of taking the money there. They didn't meet Peter at that point because he was in jail courtesy King Herod. Shortly after they returned to Antioch after delivering the money.

When they got back to Antioch they began going to various synagogues preaching the gospel to all and sundry which polarized the audience in that Jews didn't accept the message while the Gentiles accepted it and urged the men to keep preaching the gospel to them. At the end of the day the Jews, filled with anger and jealousy ensured that both men were kicked out of the city till the gist got to the ears of the power that be in Jerusalem and as such, the council was scheduled.

During that meeting Paul and Barnabas argued with the same circumcision group that had done same to Peter and during the heat Peter stood up to recount the same story he had told the same men years before. In other words, Peter sided with Paul and Barnabas. So James concluded that Paul and co were free to keep preaching to the Gentiles without imposing much Jewish laws on them. With that Paul and Barnabas left fot Antioch.

Peter joined them a short while later preaching and eating with the Gentiles and all was rosy until Silas, Judas and the other prophets from Jerusalem came to deliver James letter and encourage the brothers. When they came, Paul noticed that this same Peter that had defended himself twice (once in Jerusalem alone after Cornelius and later at the Jerusalem council) began to shift away from the Gentiles and didn't want to be seen eating with them. The leaders like Silas and Judas joined him too in the hypocrisy and even Barnabas was not spared. So Paul did the needful by correcting Peter in front of them all and Peter didn't argue because he knew Paul was right seeing that he had just defended Paul moments ago in Jerusalem.

Sorry for my epistle, but can you see why Paul had to confront Peter? Even at that, did you notice he called him no names neither did he mock him in front of the other leaders. He simply corrected him so that they too could learn the lesson. It has nothing to do with what some of you do in the name of correcting an error especially as none of you are leaders. But if you feel you are right despite what scriptures say, ride on.

I rest my case on this issue.

B idam

This your strawmann argument don tire me.. What is your fixation on menses BTW? Are you female?SMH! An argument for silence.

I picked a random Law am sure you would never in a billion years apply to Christians as a reference point. Aks Moses whey he never spared us the 'gore'

Is it animal sacrifice that God was interested in to start with? You still have a long way to go in your bible study...another irrelevancy that in no way address my post.

God was interested with their hearts BUT they still offered animals. What has changed?

Who are those you scoff at? Do you know the significance of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus( The Lamb).? What is the spiritual connotation behind what the isrealite did and what Jesus told his disciples to do before His depature?

\
What justification would you give for abandoning animal sacrifices such as freewill offerings? Do you find their meaning in CHrist? COngratulations, but you obtusely refuse to see the tithe significance in GIVING and not a rule! SMH

Yet Jesus commended the giving of their 10percent to the temple. It was the outward pious show of hypocrisy Jesus was against..like i said giving emanates from the heart.. If you find it offensive that christians called their 10prcnt givings as "tithes" don't blame them, no one is going to hell if he tithes or not.

As long as you are not repeatedly threatened with curses and Devourers of Finances, and you make up your mind when and where not to mention whether to give, we are cool. And don't gloat over others who don't

Yet the evangelicals you crucify are you any better? It smacks and reeks of hypocrisy and double standard on your part too. The argument you also are fixated on and spamming all the tithe threads with can also be said to be self righteous and legalistic. I said before and i repeat here again, tithing as a form of giving is not annulled.

And I can quote dozens of other OT practices that were NEVER annulled that you NEVER practice. Am drilling this down your head that NEVER-ANNULLED argument is WEAK and inconsistently applied by the tithing brigade to justify their fickle attempts at tithing while ignoring so much

Wait o..i am a male, who told you i am not circumcised There is the internal circumcision of the heart, How do you interprete that? The outward circumcision argument was that it wasn't a requirement for salvation.. Just like tithing is not a requirement for salvation. Your argument about circumcision is weak, if you had check those tithe threads you spammed, you would have seen it.

Circumcision as a command is not relevant for Christians. Those who did are no better than those who didn't. Now, replace circumcision with tithing.

I keep christmas, feast,easter feast and other festivals that are christian ones like love feast...no one is attacking my liberty in Christ concerning this except you mr vook because of tithe..na wa o.

Those are Pagan. try and keep Passover,Weeks and so forth and when you do, QUIT attacking the liberty of those who don't

It is not inconsistent, you are the fellow seeing yam, rice, oil, corn and animals as a 10percent. All i see there is my heart givings which is the toil of my sweat since am no farmer, i based it on my time, income etc i give as a service to God. Paul saya we should present our bodies(time,energy,money) as sacrifice which is a reasonable service and a spiritual act of worship. I am just fufilling scripture here. Don't blame me.

God never required nothing outside farm produce and that from Israel. This is tedious repeating. and not ALL were farmers

Yes, yet you couldn't accuse Paul when he picked the levetical system of giving to say the Lord commanded preachers to be paid by the folks they minister to. So what part in that law is applicable if we are to follow your line of thinking?

Paul used illustrations from Torah. Farmer, ox and the Levitical regime. Ministers MUST be supported but did you notice this is a RIGHT Paul withheld from invoking? So there is nothing magical in supporting ministers. If that was a ticket out of poverty, he would have recommended that to the poorest. He instead saw it as a BURDEN

Since, you can't help but resort to insults as typical with you. This is my last response to your post. Have a blessed day.

Cheers bro

But I haven't heard any of your proposal sir
What would you rather was done?

dein77:
It's God's grace that's enabling me continue with this journey. I would have been more disillusioned if not for His strength and grace. A lot of administrative flaws!

Bidam,
for the umpteenth time, whene were the freewill offerings annulled?

Bidam:
Wrong. I actually asked for the annulment of tithes not the old covenant. Check my post again.

So did the Holy Spirit tell you that menstruation laws are not applicable for you? Because if scripture wisdom is as subjective as your revelation, then everything goes.d what is not. It can't be your private revelation sir. Otherwise if I woke up and started animal sacrifices while scoffing at others who are not into blood sacrifices, how can you help me?

Tithing is non-essential in the OT yet it is the one thing the Pharisee gloated before God in prayer, and it is one thing Jesus singled out in Pharisee self-righteousness. Am not surprised even today, it is a MAJOR doctrine among the evangelicals.

The Spirit teaches you the spirit behind circumcision,you abandon circumcision but retain the spiritual aspect of the same. Same case as the Feasts, but I find it decidedly convenient that you were taught the spirit behind OT tithes, you understood that BUT retained the physical tithing as well. Is this not inconsistent application of scriptures?

Am driving that there are clear objective principles we follow in picking what part of Moses is applicable to us and what is not

When you run out of sense, it is convenient to accuse your debater of being argumentative

Bidam:
why would i do that? I have the Holy Spirit. He teaches me all things interpreting scriptures with scriptures. Unlike you i don't rely on strange websites who start their conversations with an argument. It is just like the JW folks who are ever arguing about the deity of Christ. Any christianity that's anchors it belief system on the basis of an argument is no christianity.
Moreso we are discussing a non essential doctrine here which to me shouldn't even be an issue to start with if at all you are for givings in the body of Christ.

So all you need is to catch the Spirit behind every Law in Torah right?

Bidam:
pls refer to the last post you menntion about ritual cleansing.. We are not communicating here at all. Concening the law applicable to believers bible calls it the spirit law or the law of the Spirit..i kept emphazing on the Spirit behind circumcision, sabbath and the commandments you kept on harping on that christians are not required to adhere to. I can not teach you these here. You have to go on a personal search for yourself pls.

I gave you a Law I don't recall being annulled on menstruation and you went about ritual laws. Call it whatever you want but is this Law applicable to you today?

Bidam:
You said ritual cleansing wasn't annulled. So the onus is on you to tell us what ritual law you are talking about.

Gombs can't bring him/herself to summarizing what Hagin is saying about Firstfruits.


Mark 11:30-33 King James Version (KJV)

30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?

32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.


It's either Hagin is FOR or AGAINST Firstfruits. Gombs is for money firstfruits
If he admits that Hagin is against the firstfruits,that contradicts his stance and he needs to either renounce,refute or ignore Hagin. He unfortunately has zero ammo in refuting Hagin's anti-firstfruits stance yet he can't renounce a teaching that is common in his church

If he claims that Hagins is pro-firstfruits, he will be hard pressed to adduce evidence to that effect from the book. All good except there is no evidence.

What better that to play dumb and pretend you never heard the question. Classic dillemma or hypocrisy.

I don't agree with Hagin on his tithing stance and I have used scriptures to demonstrate why. I agree on some other things he says. Gombs can't afford to disagree since he has no valid grounds for doing so not to mention he would find himself in an awkward position of resisting his church's teachings!

Candour:
For the ones you're still grappling with e.g first fruits (your incoherence about it betrays your lack of confidence on your stand viz a viz that of Hagin's), time will tell.

Thank God for how far you've gone with it. pls go ahead. The Lord is your power

cheers

What is a ritual Law?

Bidam:
edit..always give room for time before response pls..This is no competition.

Again so are freewill offerings. DO you offer freewill offerings?

The NOT-ANNULLED argument is the most senseless and inconsistent because you run into hundreds of other things that you have no record of being annulled yet you don't practice them

Bidam:
Is it compulsory for christians to give? Tithing is NOWHERE ANNULLED IN THE NT.

Who draws the line between CEREMONIAL Laws and non-CEREMONIAL? Your head? How convenient

And EXACTLY what are CEREMONIAL Laws?

Bidam:
Sorry What kind of ritualistic bath do you do as a christian?
once again the analogy doesn't quite follow just like the old worn out argument of circumcision..All these flies in the face of logic. Is tithes a ritual law?