₦airaland Forum

Highcuerayte:
lol......no need to explain things to you again seeing you don't even understand the Scriptures you are quoting.

You have nobody but your fertile imagination and familiar spirits to blame for your delusion

Sirchucks:
INTRESTING!

Stay blessed and stay away from the confused who think Yeshua is more powerful than Jesus

Highcuerayte:
In flesh it is but when you attain the stature of Christ it's not.

It was equally painful for Jesus. Have you attained the 'stature of Christ'? And exactly what is the 'stature of Christ'?

Highcuerayte:
Assumption I supposed has been and is the problem of many believers of which unfortunately you fall into the category. You made one major erroneous assumption which umbrella minor assumptions, and that is "They are men."

The Scripture says and I quote "I will give power to my two witnesses and they shall prophesy" Not "I will give power to two men and they shall preach the Gospel"

You are full of assumptions and you think to teach others on how not to assume.
The very word WITNESS. What else is a witness other than men?

To understand the Scripture quoted above we need to underline the subject of focus. Which are: "Witnesses" and "Prophecy"

Now witnesses, what and what are used to describe the two witnesses?

- Olives trees (Symbolic description)
- Candlesticks (Symbolic description)

Now what is the literal presentation of "Olives trees"? Paul wrote of the Church as the Olive trees of which branches (People) are taken off (The Jews) that wild branches (People) may be grafted in (Gentiles). And here we have two Olives trees symbolically representing two Churches. Remember Christ in the vision addresses seven churches (Churches in the Seven continents of the world) five are failing (Ephesus,Symrna,Pergamos,Sardis and Laodiceans) which Christ called for their repentance and two stand (Thyatira and Philadelphia) which Christ told to hold firm till he come with these promises given to them:

Faulty thinking and wild assumptions are your forte
1. Paul wrote of ONE tree with Jews being naturals and Gentiles being grafted in. Not two trees, one for Jews and one of Gentiles
2. The seven churches are in Achaia/Asia a province in Roman Empire somewhere in modern Turkey and not SEVEN continents

- Churches in Thyatira : I will give him power over nations (same with the two witnesses; they have power over the nations )

Which Bible are you reading?
Thyatira is given power over nations AFTER they overcome to the end while the witnesses are given power. Stop adding to the Word

- Churches in Philadelphia: I will keep thee from the hour of tribulation which shall come over the whole world (Same with the two witnesses no one was able to harm them: thus they are safe)

Nonsense. The witnesses are KILLED. So what killed them? Did they commit suicide?

Now what is the literal presentation of Candlestick? Christ in the visions explained the mystery of the seven candle sticks he called them "Seven Churches." But the two witnesses are only two out of the seven candle sticks; Two out of the seven churches each present in the seven continents of the world.

Fertile thinking. Who told you they are TWO out of SEVEN? They are TWO. And who told you the seven represent continents? He seven churches are LITERAL seven Chuches in Asia Minor.

We have now established what two olives trees and two candlesticks stands for, they are two out of the seven churches.

No you haven't . You have just made wild guesses

Understand that the two witnesses are both the Olives and Candle stick presenting one thing. The double usage of symbolism is to confirm their identity as the two churches.

You have ONE Church the body of Christ and not two churches. That's heresy.

In other words the olives trees are the candle sticks and the candle sticks the olive trees meaning the two witnesses are the two witnesses (Substituting that identity).

Ok

These presents us with a fact I just learn from the Lord as I write this, 5/7 of the Christian population will be killed in the tribulation while 2/7(two witnesses) will be preserved to prophecy for the latter 3½ years of the tribulation.

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormons and claimed he learnt it from God. Your visions,dreams and imaginations MUST be subjected to scriptures. 5/7 and 2/7 is fertile imagination overworked

Also I will let you know this the beast exist before the two witnesses were born (The man-child) only they have not began the killing of Christians .

Not necessarily. I'd say the beast was readying himself for the kill long before the two witnesses got power.

The birth of the man child (which is the two witnesses revealed by the Scripture as two churches of God throughout the continent) caused Satan and his angels (Mistaken for aliens) to be casted out from the second heaven( outer space) down to this earth (Satan will be physically present on earth).

Fertile imagination. You have just made the two witnesses the man child. The man child never dies but the witnesses die for 3.5 days

Their casting out results in persecutions of Christians that the angel cried out "Woe to earth." It is during the latter 3½ years that the mark of the beast will be enforced resulting in great persecution of the Church of which 5/7 will fall but the 2/7 will be safe prophesying and afflicting the nations with their power. But at the end of the 3½years the beast will make war against them throughout the whole continents of the world having finished their missions they will surrender thier life and be killed.Note: The city is symbolically called Egypt and Sodom where their Lord was crucified. Now Christ was Crucified in Golgothat and not Jerusalem which is not a City.

Jesus was crucified right outside Jerusalem. Do you have the name of the City he was crucified other than Jerusalem?

John 19:20 (KJV)
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin

Sodom and Egypt by presentation denotes Place of immorality and Captivity and only one City in the Bible carry both title, "The Great Babylon" which explained is present on the seven mountains which are seven continents of the world.

Where was Jesus crucified? In the seven continents?
[b]Revelation 11:8-13 King James Version (KJV)

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.[/b]

So how could an earthquake in Golgotha a hill, a walking distance from Jerusalem kill 7000?

The question here my brother is do you want to be part of the conquered Victor ( The 5/7 churches) or victorious Victor (2/7 churches)?

A better question is, why do you listen to lying vanities and pass them as the voice of Holy Spirit?

If the latter is your choice then it's time you come out of Babylon City of deception. Rip off the lies you have been fed in churches and read the Scripture for yourself. For I tell you we are already in the early 3½ years of the great tribulation.

In short I should discard scriptures and pursue your visions?

EVarn:
No one is asking you to suffer for humanity(Christ did that already); what we are talking about is that towards the end of days,the witnesses of the gospel of Christ shall be persecuted for their faith.
The interpretation here is that as Christ died for humanity,so should his followers be ready to die for him,toward the apocalypse.

Pain is repulsive and nobody wants to suffer pain if they can avoid it. But believers can't divorce themselves from trials

orunto27:
Hebrew name is ISSVE. Greek is Yashua. Italian is Joshua and English is Jesus. They all translate to Anointed.

Hebrew name is YESHUA

I am continually amazed by how many people write to our ministry and ask us questions like this one, which came in last week: “Some Christians say we have to use the Hebrew name, Yashua. They say calling on the name of Jesus is calling on Zeus. That Jesus is a disguise name for Satan. What answers do you have for this? Where can we prove the name of Jesus is correct to use in its English translation and pronunciation?”

As bizarre as these questions are, the fact that they keep coming up means that they need to be addressed, so here are some simple responses (for more details, see 60 Questions Christians Ask About Jewish Beliefs and Practices, question #38).

The original Hebrew-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshu‘a, which is short for yehōshu‘a (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael. The name yeshu‘a occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, primarily referring to the high priest after the Babylonian exile, called both yehōshu‘a (see, e.g., Zechariah 3:3) and, more frequently, yeshu‘a (see, e.g., Ezra 3:2). So, Yeshua’s name was not unusual; in fact, as many as five different men had that name in the Old Testament. And this is how that name came to be “Jesus” in English: Simply stated, this is the etymological history of the name Jesus: Hebrew/Aramaic yeshu‘a became Greek Iēsous, then Latin Iesus, passing into German and then, ultimately, into English, as Jesus.

Why then do some people refer to Jesus as Yahshua? There is absolutely no support for this pronunciation—none at all—and I say this as someone holding a Ph.D. in Semitic languages. My educated guess is that some zealous but linguistically ignorant people thought that Yahweh’s name must have been a more overt part of our Savior’s name, hence YAHshua rather than Yeshua—but again, there is no support of any kind for this theory.

The Hebrew Bible has yeshu‘a; when the Septuagint authors rendered this name in Greek, they rendered it as Іησους (I­­ēsous, with no hint of yah at the beginning of the name); and the same can be said of the Peshitta translators when they rendered Yeshua’s name into Syriac (part of the Aramaic language family). All this is consistent and clear: The original form of the name Jesus is yeshu‘a, and there is no such name as yahshu‘a (or,yahushua or the like).

What about the alleged connection between the name Jesus (Greek I­­ēsous) and Zeus? This is one of the most ridiculous claims that has ever been made, but it has received more circulation in recent years (the Internet is an amazing tool of misinformation), and there are some believers who feel that it is not only preferable to use the original Hebrew/Aramaic name, Yeshua, but that it is wrong to use the name Jesus. Because of this, we will briefly examine this claim and expose the fallacies that underlie it.

According to the late A. B. Traina in his Holy Name Bible, “The name of the Son, Yahshua, has been substituted by Jesus, Iesus, and Ea-Zeus (Healing Zeus).”

In this one short sentence, two complete myths are stated as fact: First, there is no such name as Yahshua (as we have just explained), and second, there is no connection of any kind between the Greek name I­­ēsous (or the English name Jesus) and the name Zeus. Absolutely none! You might as well argue that Tiger Woods is the name of a tiger-infested jungle in India as try to connect the name Jesus to the pagan god Zeus. It is that absurd, and it is based on serious linguistic ignorance.

Here is another, equally absurd statement:
Basically, to keep it simple, “Jesus” is a very poor Roman translation from Latin, that was also poorly translated from the Greek, which IN NO WAY resembles His Hebrew name, “Yahushua.” Whew! Get all that? Moreover, according to the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, the name Ieusus (Jesus) is a combination of 2 mythical deities, IEU and SUS (ZEUS, a Greek god). In Gnostic and Greek mythologies they are actually one and the same pagan deity. So, it appears the name “Jesus” has some documented pagan origins. That’s not good! In fairness, some Messianic believers disagree and state that there is no definitive evidence to connect “Jesus” to “Zeus.” However, I disagree with them. (http://www.wwyd.org/)

The response to this statement (which has as much support as the latest Elvis sightings) is quite simple: We know where the name I­­ēsous came from: the Jewish Septuagint! In other words, this was not some later, pagan corruption of the Savior’s name; rather, it was the natural Greek way of rendering the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua at least two centuries before His birth, and it is the form of the name found in more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This is saying something! The name I­­ēsous is also found in Greek writings outside the New Testament and dating to that same general time frame.

Although it is claimed that the Encyclopedia Britannica says that “the name Ieusus (Jesus) is a combination of 2 mythical deities, IEU and SUS (ZEUS, a Greek god)” it actually says no such thing. This is a complete fabrication, intentional or not. In short, as one Jewish believer once stated, “Jesus is as much related to Zeus as Moses is to mice.”

Unfortunately, some popular teachers continue to espouse the Jesus-Zeus connection, and many believers follow the pseudo-scholarship in these fringe, “new revelation” teachings. Not only are these teachings and practices filled with error, but they do not profit in the least. So, to every English-speaking believer I say: Do not be ashamed to use the name JESUS! That is the proper way to say his name in English—just as Michael is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mi-kha-el and Moses is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mo-sheh. Pray in Jesus’ name, worship in Jesus’ name, and witness in Jesus’ name. And for those who want to relate to our Messiah’s Jewishness, then refer to him by His original name Yeshua—not Yahshua and not Yahushua—remembering that the power of the name is not in its pronunciation but in the person to whom it refers, our Lord and Redeemer and King.

- See more at: https://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/what-is-the-original-hebrew-name-for-jesus-and-is-it-true-that-the-name-jesus-is-really-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus/#comment-915166

Highcuerayte

The two witnesses are two men.
A basic and sensible approach to Revelation is to take everything literally unless there are sufficient reasons not to. The biggest mistake one can make in Revelation is interpreting a literal event or person or entity as symbolic and then interpreting this 'symbol'. The result is epic confusion. Equally erroneous is interpreting a symbol as literal.

Why are they men?
1. They are called thus
2. They preach the gospel
3. Their description is amidst other men
4. They are killed
5. They are resurrected
6. There is NOTHING suggesting they are not.

Please observe they are killed by the Beast yet the Beast only shows up in chapter 13.

Please summarize why you think the two witnesses are two groups of individuals and not two men

TB Joshua has not been seen in public since May
He must be nursing a REAL sickness that is immune to his amulets and morning water
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER

Why pray for the dead? Is it supposed to change their eternal fortunes? Does it add the number of virgins he deflowers?

Gombs:
I knew talk was cheap... it wasn't about the monies, or paper. It was simply bad behaviour, improper planning and self deceit.

I've been postponed to handle publicity in one of our Crusades.. I know what it takes to publicise... these rookies only know noise making.

the guy definitely found oyel, and I wish him well.

It's plain stupid

Akbee:
I believe that I'm not the only witness to what always happens during deliverance sessions and altar calls in our pentecostal churches .Its quite obvious that our sisters in the Lord tend to fall under the anointing more than the brothers.Are the sisters better christians than than us or is the holy spirit gender conscious?
I am not in anyway trying to downplay God's power to make both sex have the same level of susceptibility when it comes to falling under the anointing. However, I am baffled and bent on getting some explanations.
Brethrens lets reason together.

Much of what you see there is emotions and women are good with emotions more than men

WinsomeX:
Vooks, I never intended this discussion to resort to the accusatory note that you obviously are turning it into. I simply requested that you look at the merit of the Cessationists argument in the light of the book you brought here and tagged me on. It is certainly not my aim to disparage pentecostalism but simply to show its fundamental flaw. Unfortunately it seem to me that this flaw is obvious to you too only that a sentimental attachment will not allow you reach the very clear and obvious conclusion.

If Pentecostalism has 'fundamental flaw' because there is abuse there, then Christianity has 'fundamental flaw' since there is abuse in Christianity.

Suggesting atheism or trinitarianism to underscore my point on this thread is surely what I hear people call a straw man effort. None of us is atheist here; neither are the people mentioned in the book, so this doesn't hold water. Also, the obvious root of all the errors explained in the book is connected with Charismatism not anti-trinity. And if it will help you, the second or third case study was a non believer in trinity but his errors where not traced to this. Rather ALL the errors where traced to extra biblical revelations and the upholding of one individual as an apostle with new revelations. This is a problem with Charismatics not anti-trinitarians. All the commentaries I've read on Arian, the first recorded anti trinity chap, never said he was a super apostle. He postulated a theory that deceived many but he never claimed some divine origin for it.

Am not sure the exact state of evolution your pneumatology is but let's assume you believe Holy Spirit is a person. You once called Him IT under another moniker. Holy Spirit in His divine And infinite Wisdom gave us Spiritual gifts with full (fore)knowledge of their abuse. It is not my prerogative to exercise more skepticism as far as the gifts are concerned than God.

This is not the assignment you gave me. You asked if I knew any flaw in Calvin. I told you his running Geneva as a theocracy. It never satisfied you. All these you have enumerated are debatable and I do not necessarily agree with them all. It's a theological point of view and not some spooky new revelations from angels.

I can't help with your memory am sorry.
'Theological point of view' if it is false is of as much value and danger as 'some spooky new revelations from Angels'. Heresies are heresies REGARDLESS of how they are conceived and articulated. LGBT affirming churches are 'theological point of view' as are pro-choice believers. Peter tells of those who WREST with Paul's writings to their damnation. This tells you 'theological point of view' can and indeed has sent millions to hell.

Errors cut across the Continuationism-Cessationism divide. Memorize this statement and meditate on it.

Again there is no need for the combative reaction here. No one is covering any fault with anything. I could have simply ignored the thread but I asked if you see the merit of the Cessationists argument bc all the case study in the book where proving them right. I'm sorry you cannot see it.

There is no reason playing the victim card.
The so called 'merits' of Cessationists are as valid as subscribing to Satanism because there is abuse in Christianity.

The strongest argument FOR cessationism is that book you posted in the OP. It proves all their exegical efforts from scriptures right. I have not mentioned continuionists here, you did. But the book offers them enough to rethink their position.

Cessationism has no 'strong' arguments; it has no arguments at all.
Cessationism is denying scriptures. The cessationist is a step away from the full blown atheist, and there is little wonder they never hesitate to come together to bash their archenemies the Pentecostals.

Your resort to false labels and your usual insults is just your attempt to veil what is obvious to you. I thank you for the tag. I have since published the book on my Facebook wall for others to read too and beware. However, you may wish to reconsider tagging me on threads that lend credence to my debates with you. I will only be forced to open old wounds.

Again thank you for the tag.

#unfollows thread#

It is childish telling all that you are leaving. What do you imagine this achieves? Make me sour because you have 'gone'? .I did not mention you because you are special but because your moniker I can recall off my mind. Feel free to 'open old wounds' . I will gladly play along and remind you of a boy who thinks Holy Spirit is an IT.


PS
I'd never do that, am slightly more civilized. Adios

WinsomeX:
OK vooks, let me take the discuss from another end. Though I'm yet to conclude the book but point out for me in that book:

1. One group, sect or person who espouses Calvinism and was mentioned as being led astray in a cult or abused group.

2. One group, sect or person who espoused Cessationism and was mentioned as being led astray in a cult or abused group in that book .

At least one.

While you're at it, note that 95% of all those mentioned as suffering in abused groups in that book came from Charismatic or Pentecostal churches. The remaining 5% do not have their religious stance clearly defined. Does this not still point to the fact that there is something fundamentally flawed with Charismatism and Pentecostalism?

Lest I'm reminded that Jehovah Witnesses also espouse cessationism, I should point out to you at the same rate that the foundation of Jehovah Witnesses and their beliefs are other subjective experiences. You may wish to enumerate John Calvin or Luther's encounters with angels.

Winsomex,
I don't have full beliefs of the group but let's just say for the sake of argument that ALL the abusive groups are Pentecostals.
ALL the groups mentioned are also Trinitarian. Does this mean there is something fundamentally flawed with Trinitarianism?

There is an assignment I once gave you on OC and you have never done; enumerating heresies emerging from Cessationism and Calvinism. If you think there are none, just say so. Let me start you off;
1. Baptismal Regeneration
2. Soul sleep
3. Annihilationism
4. Universalism

If you are honest enough, you'd admit that doctrinal errors cut across the various beliefs on spiritual gifts. Why are you and MacArthur fixated on continuationism? My guess is it diverts attention from your faults. The knowledge that your 'enemies' are wrong thrills you endlessly. But what about yourself?

The strongest argument against Cessationism is the ZERO exegetical basis for it. Having lost out at where it matters the most, cessationists must needs invent fallacies such as 'revelatory gifts ADD to the scripture', 'everything that is wrong with Christianity is due to continuationism' and so forth. I don't blame them; when you lack substance, you must excel in pettiness and outright lies to vindicate yourself

Image123,Scholar8200,Joagbaje, Gombs
Help me understand why you are compelled to defend the indefensible.
Why are you determined to skip tribulations? Is it the primal self-preservation instincts that make us avoid pain, or is it that you have never thought through these things soberly apart from the lenses of a bible commentary?

For years I was in the pre-trib camp and I could regurgitate these arguments you are passing as yours backward. I had my theology watertight. Every 'prophecy teacher', Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsay, John Hagee.... All these guys really impressed me BIG.

But soon I started noting serious discrepancies among them. I also got exposed to preterism, ammilenialism among others. And I got confused. How could such compelling arguments contradict each other?

The answer is, they are THEORIES OF MEN.

I purposed to study on my own. One thing I realized is that pre-trib is under 100 years old.

Does the age of a theological system matter? Not really. Some errors may persist for years. But Christian History is very important in sorting 'every wind of doctrine'. See new stuff keeps on coming up. New 'revelations' ought to be thoroughly scrutinized as chances are they are errors. Pre-trib is a convenient theory; it gives false hope of escape. It goes without saying such a teaching will spread super fast. Because we are averse to pain. Naturally.

My humble appeal is be humble enough to admit that your beliefs are in all likelihood THEORIES of men. Purpose to study for yourself. Don't be afraid of asking hard questions or contradicting your MoG. Be open minded, there is still room to learn and improve on what you have.

From my sojourns I find the simplest and the most scripturally persuasive position to be
1. Post-trib
2. A single coming again of Jesus in Rev 19-20

I still have questions am yet to figure out. For instance I wonder whether the millennial reign is literal.

God bless you all

Tithing is an innocent Christian tradition just like Sunday meetings. At most it should be recommended. Those enforcing it and blackmailing others do err grievously.

Similarities between tithing and Sunday worship;
1. BOTH are traditions
2. BOTH inculcate discipline one in supporting ministry and the other in regular fellowship
3. BOTH have no scriptural basis
4. BOTH have been abused and wielded in a pharaisical fashion

WinsomeX:
"Cessationism, Apostleship and Revelation.

Colossians 1:26 That is the mystery which had been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to his saints (NASB).

My recent discussions on the Open Congregation Christian Facebook forum on the subject of Cessationism demands that I spend sometimes elaborating on this subject on this post. At the close of discussions on that forum, the widely held assumption is that I am teaching a strange doctrine by insisting that scriptures teaches Cessationism in the sense that there are no more apostles today, neither are there individuals working apostolic miracles. The brethren reject outrightly that the scriptures are a closed canon but believe that revelations continue, with God still giving people "prophetic words". If such a view can be held on a forum like Open Congregation, which I consider to be highly cerebral, then it is not surprising to find falsehood abounding in today's Church. This post is another attempt to examine the Cessation question from another perspective.

Colossians 1:26 gives us one of the leading credentials of an apostle: the fact that they are God's means of bringing revelation to the church. Paul here discusses a revelation hidden in time past but made manifest to the church today. This revelation is about God's new plan to bring the Gentile nations to salvation through Christ. Incidentally, Paul was not the first apostle to get wind of the revelation. Peter had been hinted of it in Acts 10 through the incident of Cornelius. Subsequently, when Paul came to Christ, Jesus gave him a ministry to the Gentiles. What, however, must be understood is that the revelation of Gentiles coming to faith in Christ is far reaching because it will include the end of the old covenant, the beginning of faith in Christ and the call to walk by a new standard of love and not law. This was the matter Paul was attending to in his Epistles to the Galatians. However, note that Paul puts a caveat to it. In the same context of showing that he was an apostle with a revelation from Christ, he also states that there will be no other revelation after his. In other words, revelations of these magnitude will cease and anyone that adds to revealed scriptures (or revelations) is cursed:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

In the light of Colossians 1:26 that a revelation has been given to the church and in the clear testimony of Galatians 1:8-9, Revelations 22:18-19 and Jude 3 that speaks of an end to these revelations, it is clear where the root of all falsehood in the church arises: Christians inability to accept the fact that revelation is closed, apostles have ceased and God is no longer giving fresh prophecies beyond the prophecies of scriptures (Hebrew 1:1-2).

The hallmark of all false prophets and the false religious movements they lead is the fact that these men regard themselves as new apostles to the church who are bringing new revelations to us. From the Roman Catholic church tradition of considering the Pope as an apostolic successor to Peter, to Mohammed's revelation of Islam, to Joseph Smith's revelation of Mormonism, to Jehovah Witnessing, to Mary Eddy Baker revelation of Christian Science, to William Branham revelation of Serpent Seed, and to the very pervasive but widely accepted doctrine of the Word of faith and Prosperity Gospel by E. W. Kenyon and Kenneth Hagin, every one of these false teaching have the same credentials with the Apostle Paul: they all claim apostleship from God with a new revelation different from revealed truths of scriptures. The only difference being that Paul remains a true prophet approved in scripture, while these individuals are false prophets, whose only credentials are their own words, subjective experiences and supposed miracles, in some cases. If those who have been deceived by these doctrines had simply heeded the clear warning of scriptures on the cessation of the apostolic office and revelations, they would not have fallen away from the Christian faith.

Therefore, within scriptures, especially the Epistles, are the revelatory truths of God's words given to the church. This statement is not an attempt to belittle the Old Testament or the books of Matthew to John recording the teachings of Jesus, but to challenge the church to study and understand the revealed truths of God's word that came to the church only AFTER Christ's death and resurrection. These truths are what the apostles taught in the Epistles, confirming Christ's words that further truths will come to the church through the apostles (John 14:26) and after the apostles had given these revelations, they will cease (Revelation 22:18-19).

If however we open ourselves up to new revelation from new apostles, the church will continue to be led on a path of error with myriads of so called Christians heading to an accursed eternity in hell."

Compare this with a quote from that book:

"The story of Shiloh is not unlike other nineteenth century American religious experiments that emerged around a single authoritarian leader. One way to achieve an understanding of current abusive movements is to step back and take a broader, historical perspective. An examination of Sandford's Shiloh reveals amazing parallels to the spiritually abusive groups of today. The lesson we learn from Frank Sandford is that there is indeed nothing new about "new" Christian movements. Now, as in the past, the spiritual power holders exert strong controloriented leadership and exercise immense influence in the day-to-day lives of adherents. In the present, like the past, Christian groups claim new divine revelation through inspired prophets or preachers who "receive a word from the Lord" regularly. Like Sandford and his predecessors, today's movements express the conviction they alone are the repository of "truth," or that they have been chosen by God to restore a lost or dormant spiritual vitality. Both groupings share a strong consciousness of persecution; both illustrate attitudes of negativity toward established churches; both view their "spiritual family" as superior to the biological family; and both have exhibited concern about the role and fate of ex-members. In short, the narrative of churches that abuse has important beginnings in our past. "

Do you see similarities. See the bold.

I really don't understand what got you excited here.

A few facts for you
1. Nobody not Jesus nor the apostles taught cessationism, it is a tradition of men. Cessationism is extrabiblical as much as Assumption of Mary is. It is another gospel.

2. Revelation is a warning against adding to the words of THAT book. There was no book called NT when John received the word. NT canon was compiled 300 years later. So while it is true nobody should add to the NT, this verse has nothing to do with it. And it may come as a surprise but I agree with you; a prophecy should not elevate one above others. Where I differ with you is the claim that prophecies ADD to scriptures. If they do, give me Agabus epistles or Philip's daughters. Nobody but yourself can see how prophecy or speaking in tongues is ADDING to scriptures. This is a red herring

3. During the apostolic times, th believers still searched the existing scriptures to validate the apostolic teachings. This is a precedent for all ages; testing every word and not just prophecies against scriptures. Cessationism claims themselves MUST be subjected to scriptures. They fail woefully. Let's b clear that Cessationism is not synonymous with testing doctrine against scripture. Cessationism itself is a belief system.

4. The solution to abuse of truths is not marrying heresies and lies but proper use. Paul exemplified this in 1 Cor. He gave guidelines for exercising spiritual gifts and not summary ban of the same. Scriptural instructions on marriage as well is an excellent example of this.

5. Heresies are aberration of the truth and they don't need spiritual gifts to thrive. Calvinism is rank heresy. Calvin developed another gospel independent of spiritual gifts. Consider his claims;
(a) Jesus died for a few and not all so the merits of the cross are inaccessible to some
(b) God is the author of sin
What about dispensationalism? Another confusion that has nothing to do with spiritual gifts. I could go on and on but the point is Cessationism which is heartily prescribed has 'blessed' us with innumerable heresies. So it is a tad hypocritical for cessationists to chide continuationism for doctrinal errors. Remove the log in your eye first.

Note, it's not that I deny the madness exercised in the name of Holy Spirit, just that solution to abUSE is proper USE, and in the same way you don't discard cessationism despite heresies coming from your camp but you still cling on to the good, is the same way I view gifts fakery and abuse.

In conclusion, my advice is simple; get decent and reasonable excuses for your position and let go the ludicrous ones

WinsomeX:
1. You obviously do not understand the Cessationists position. I will repost a much disputed article of mine below to lend credence to my point that this book supports the Cessationists position. Cessationism does not reject spiritual gifts. It states that REVELATORY gifts are ceased.
2. Of course you will say there is zero scriptural position for cessationism. Same thing will apply to your rejection of Calvinism. Nonetheless scriptures are clear on these matters.

3. The main argument of the Cessationists is that you cannot use subjective experiences as bases for objective truths. Your question is simply reiterating our position and showing the source of all the errors in that book.

4. The aim of theological discourse is not abuses. Such infantile aims is the bases for weak discussions. I never fear insults for stating my positions. I don't know for atheists. However I see sarcasm in that statement all the same.

We have been down this road before. No need redefining cessationism. Of course I understand your dilemma; identifying which strand of cessationism to subscribe to. It simply says there are ZERO spiritual gifts post apostles which necessarily implies any such manifestation is either an elaborate fraud/fakery or even worse, demonic. No need to sugar coat it. An addendum to this thinking is that spiritual gifts filled a canon void and once the NT was penned,the gifts became redundant.


There is ZERO scriptural basis for this, and there are tons of scriptures AGAINST it.

My point is, we can't discard a truth because it is fraught with abuse. Christianity in itself is a truth. Christianity has been abused and used as a tool for dominating and fleecing men. If you countenance discarding Christianity because of this, then I will countenance discarding continuationism because spiritual gifts are abused.

What you need to do is invest in good excuses for cessationism (of course there are none), and am actually helping you by pointing out to how some of your excuses are ludicrous

PS
1. What is REVELATORY gift? Sounds like another vocabulary invented to accommodate some uncomfortable and illogical conclusions of cessationism. Correct m if am wrong
2. Is healing one of the REVELATORY gift?
3. The book lists a persecution complex as a trait of abusive churches. They don't brook no criticism and they see it as vindicating their stance however ridiculous it be. So these tales of insults for your position is petty victimhood. MacArthur the Cessationism posterboy has the crudest insults reserved for continuationism including charging them with being unbelievers

WinsomeX:
I agree with you vooks that even an atheist can stand on these phenomenons and use it to justify his beliefs but you should understand that at least between you and me there is no atheist here. But the claims of the cessarionists are plainly justified here.

I sense your resort to sarcasm is a tacit agreement to my point.

What I said in as many words is this is an extremely lame excuse for dismissing spiritual gifts.

Supposing there was no contention (there is zero scriptural basis for cessationism), supposing everybody took spiritual gifts as a given the same way we believe Jesus resurrected. Would you countenance rejecting this truth simply because they are abused?

Do we use subjective experiences in weighing objective truths?

This is why I said an atheist is the best immune from the shenanigans. If he rejects Christ, no Christian can abuse him. Now substitute atheist with a cessationist and Christ with spiritual gifts. This is no sarcasm my dearest Broda

EVarn:
lol,was Michael a human ruler in Israel?.
You obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Am demonstrating your stupidity and am glad you are getting it. You don't harp on a verse here and another there and make silly statements

[quote author=WinsomeX post=39342634]vooks,

My attitude to reading this book is to look out for how it ministers to me both as a leader of a fellowship and head of my home. Abuse in church is very easy to laps into.

That is what impressed me the most. Abuse is not for those crazies down the road but ANY ministry has this potential

But my brother all the three cases I've read so far has to do with Pentecostal/WoF folks. Would you agree with me that this book makes a case for Cessationism?

It makes as much a case for cessationism as for atheism.

Swagahyk:
Vooks the IMEI guy on Melin's thread, here you are again, looking for all these religious folks to put on lapses

They are hilarious

EVarn:
Dan 12:1 referred to Michael as the "Great prince of israel".

What had this got to do with Jesus is my question. Is Jesus too the ' great Prince of Israel'?

For instance, David and Solomon were Kings in Israel. Does this make Michael a son of either?

Thinking is a privillege that should never be abused

EVarn:
How do you know that satan didnt tempt john the baptist?

Because it is not recorded that he tempted nor doubted him.

Now young man, demons in the possessed clearly knew who Jesus was, the Son of God. So Satan must have known. Is this too much to process?

EVarn:
If your read the OP,you would have seen my evidence from the book of Daniel.

And I did tear through your 'evidence'

ikorodureporta:
I captured this photo some months ago...


How wld u describe a person standing @ the rail tracks by Ikeja-Along, on a working day, preaching?


Did he consider the risk involved, & if any1 is listening to him...a mobile environment where everybody's in a hurry- Even God sef go dey vex for am...

I would describe the one who took the photo as foolish beyond measure.

EVarn:
Then it is logical to conclude that God has many sons,of which christ is his annointed firstborn.

It is logical to conclude that such conclusions can only come from ret@rded mindsj

Am still waiting for proof that Jesus is Michael

Once again
Michael is a chief angel
Jesus is NOT an angel

esere826:
thanks.
the case studies contained in this book are interesting

Please bear in mind that the Book was penned in 1992.

Here is a follow-up on one of the individuals mentioned there

http://m.styleweekly.com/richmond/geronimo-aguilars-story-sounds-like-something-ripped-from-a-christian-bestseller-is-he-the-next-great-hope-for-richmonds-inner-city/Content?oid=1376375

http://wtvr.com/2015/06/24/geronimo-aguilar-former-mega-church-pastor-found-guilty-on-all-counts-of-sexual-assault/

That aside, I was intrigued by the ease with which he passes on the message . Believers better be on look out

Where is the 'messiah of our generation'?

Nigerian brand of Christianity has more in common with paganism than anything else

You won't be seeing the Negro today . Mark my words.

But he is in Lagos, or so I hear. Was he banned from preaching?

Benjamin Dube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKzrivrE68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yflk1sbEhnw