Joagbaje:

Here comes our lying doctor, where did I make such statement?

^
In diverse places and in diverse posts. For example, there was a whole thread where Enigma (I think) called you out on your delusional beliefs concerning James. And your assertions on righteousness are recorded on this thread:

Joagbaje:

Legal salvation for OT saints was not connected to Jesus perse . All they require for salvation was good works according to the law.

Joagbaje:

Many people were counted righteous in the OLD testament. Either by faith, by works or by the law. They were called righteous men.

^In fact in this post you declare that people are counted righteous by 1) faith 2) works 3) the law. So I misspoke when I said two. You actually meant "three" types of righteousness.

Your views are well known; as others will bear witness that you have advanced such views in the past on this forum. . .so you are the one lying. I have tried to be patient with you, hoping you would repent of your evil doctrine. . .which is designed to lead astray the sheep of Christ.
Understand this therefore: there will now be no quarter between you and I. The time for tolerating your teaching is over.

^^^^

So how does your blabbing justify your lie below, give me the quote .

aletheia:

According to the gospel of Joagbaje:

1) The letter of James is not supposed to be in the Bible because it is "lesser revelation"
2) Abraham was not saved
3) There are "two" types of righteousness: Men can chose the one they wish to live by. It doesn't matter which. They will be saved.

nuella2:

@nuclearboy

Are you the only person he sent a mail to? Why are you the only person talking abt it in every thread? Alot of pple sent me mails and we discuss privately, i dont bring such to nl even if its in the nature of a woman to talk mostimes without limit, for christ sake you are a man o! This your attitude its disguisting to me, haha Chineke!

Generally, my take is that it is not good form to bring up the fact or content of private correspondence into the public arena. Except extraordinary circumstances warrant divulging such information, like when a life is directly at stake. E.g., somebody writes that he or another person plans to hurt Miss B or Mr. C.

nuella2:

@nuclearboy

Are you the only person he sent a mail to? Why are you the only person talking abt it in every thread? Alot of pple sent me mails and we discuss privately, i dont bring such to nl even if its in the nature of a woman to talk mostimes without limit, for christ sake you are a man o! This your attitude its disguisting to me, haha Chineke!

Generally, my take is that it is not good form to bring up the fact or content of private correspondence into the public arena. Except extraordinary circumstances warrant divulging such information, like when a life is directly at stake. E.g., somebody writes that he or another person plans to hurt Miss B or Mr. C.

nuella2:

@nuclearboy

Are you the only person he sent a mail to? Why are you the only person talking abt it in every thread? Alot of pple sent me mails and we discuss privately, i dont bring such to nl even if its in the nature of a woman to talk mostimes without limit, for christ sake you are a man o! This your attitude its disguisting to me, haha Chineke!

NLMediator:

Generally, my take is that it is not good form to bring up the fact or content of private correspondence into the public arena. Except extraordinary circumstances warrant divulging such information, like when a life is directly at stake. E.g., somebody writes that he or another person plans to hurt Miss B or Mr. C.

In fact, I am shocked.

NLMediator:

Generally, my take is that it is not good form to bring up the fact or content of private correspondence into the public arena. Except extraordinary circumstances warrant divulging such information, like when a life is directly at stake. E.g., somebody writes that he or another person plans to hurt Miss B or Mr. C.

^
These are extraordinary circumstances and and lives are at stake. It was good for nuclearboy to so expose them so that the world will see just what sort people these are:

nuclearboy:

How? Long time! "Pastor" Joe contacted his "worst enemies" (in his estimation) on NL ---> SirJohn (the misguided liar as he calls him), KunleOshob (can you imagine?) & myself (the ignorant babyteeth boy) via email quietly outside NL. Let me leave the list at that. His first mail to me was titled "My Appeal" and specifically said he was not sent officially to NL and thus, our "stressing" him could cause problems back at church HQ.

nuclearboy:

When people who fight with you openly on NL sneak behind and start writing you letters titled "My appeal" and in these, appealing that you please back down with criticism so that their livelihood is not affected, then it becomes obvious this is not about truth or love or sincerity but simply about livelihood/money/bellies.

Joagbaje:

^^^^
So how does your blabbing justify your lie below, give me the quote .

^Like the deluded Emperor you can continue to perambulate naked in the market place for all I care. Your poisonous brew is well known and as been recorded in different places on this forum. . .so I am not ready to oblige you. Just be informed that the time for tolerating your rubbish is over.

NLMediator:

you obviously have a good head on your shoulders - maybe you ought go through more threads in the past to understand where we are coming from:

This dude has told the whole world I am NOT worthy of conversation
He has said I am not a Christian
He has ignored everything I say or post
His gang follow me around casting aspersions on anything and everything I say even when not directly related to them
In effect, I am an enemy

Suddenly,

I get a phone call saying this same guy called someone and asked him to plead with me to "back off"
I laughed and said "Me? Impossible and can't happen = impossicant"
Later that evening, I check a mailbox I opened ONLY because of NL and to my amazement, he had written me "MY APPEAL"
As at the timing of stated email, he was saying I was effectively "satanic" openly on NL
So I replied, telling him what I thought of him etc in plainer words than I use here
He responded "courteously" INSTANTA though he had been ignoring everything I say on NL
We've written say, 12 - 15 mails to each other
I always insult (deliberately) particularly, Chris Oyakilome (just to see what he would say)
There, he finds excuses and says nothing but try that on NL (where Chris & co can see it) and watch the hackles rise & defense come out
Comms ceased only when it became obvious NO level of gist would get me to "become" a friend to their cause

What do you make of the above considering that the same guy is [1] ignoring me HERE on NL, [2] I didn't ask or even wish for communication (in matter of fact, my attitude is obviously that I despise his style and beliefs) [3] he is fawning in private conversation.

Me: I was disgusted! And so I refuse to apologize to anyone who thinks I should be decent with a deliberately cruel unfeeling schemer.

@DeepSight:

You were human before becoming a lawyer. Surely, you have not lost your natural human aversion to filth? If you have, Pele!

aletheia:

^
These are extraordinary circumstances and and lives are at stake. It was good for nuclearboy to so expose them so that the world will see just what sort people these are:

Apparently, your bar for extraordinary circumstances is quite low. I'm not persuaded.

nuclearboy:

NLMediator:

you obviously have a good head on your shoulders - maybe you ought go through more threads in the past to understand where we are coming from:

This dude has told the whole world I am NOT worthy of conversation
He has said I am not a Christian
He has ignored everything I say or post
His gang follow me around casting aspersions on anything and everything I say even when not directly related to them
In effect, I am an enemy

Suddenly,

I get a phone call saying this same guy called someone and asked him to plead with me to "back off"
I laughed and said "Me? Impossible and can't happen = impossicant"
Later that evening, I check a mailbox I opened ONLY because of NL and to my amazement, he had written me "MY APPEAL"
As at the timing of stated email, he was saying I was effectively "satanic" openly on NL
So I replied, telling him what I thought of him etc in plainer words than I use here
He responded "courteously" INSTANTA though he had been ignoring everything I say on NL
We've written say, 12 - 15 mails to each other
I always insult (deliberately) particularly, Chris Oyakilome (just to see what he would say)
There, he finds excuses and says nothing but try that on NL (where Chris & co can see it) and watch the hackles rise & defense come out
Comms ceased only when it became obvious NO level of gist would get me to "become" a friend to their cause

What do you make of the above considering that the same guy is [1] ignoring me HERE on NL, [2] I didn't ask or even wish for communication (in matter of fact, my attitude is obviously that I despise his style and beliefs) [3] he is fawning in private conversation.

Me: I was disgusted! And so I refuse to apologize to anyone who thinks I should be decent with a deliberately cruel unfeeling schemer.

@DeepSight:

You were human before becoming a lawyer. Surely, you have not lost your natural human aversion to filth? If you have, Pele!

Thanks for your kind words.

I still think you're going about this the wrong way. Divulging private discussions reflects poorly on the "divulger." And it does not make the other person any worse than he was in your eyes. So, you're the one, in the aggregate, that loses. My personal advice is that if somebody's private mail to you shows he's a different character from the one portrayed in public, your relationship with him openly should be against that backdrop. But it's not the same as revealing to the whole world, not only that he wrote to you but also what he wrote about.

@NLMediator:

Thanks for your response. Maybe you should ask yourself then - what made the communication private?

I expect that the maxim "it takes two to tango" still applies to humans. Or are you saying that the fact he decided to hide his true nature from others is binding on me? Do not forget that I did NOT initiate the contact and remained mainly belligerent through it. If I had initiated it, I would understand your point and see my disclosure as being possibly interpret-able as "entrapment". But I did not initiate and thus remained free of encumbrance!

Interestingly, I did ask him one thing - I would name someone IF he promised non-divulgence. He refused to give me that. Turn it around then - for he wanted freedom to do whatever he wished with whatever he learnt from me whist wishing my silence in the same instance. How apt and descriptive of the manipulative pulpits we see today - "do as I say but not as I do!", ehn?

I am not a spring-chicken, NLMediator and I do understand your point. But you are working with very very VERY little understanding of just who I was portrayed to be by same person. The fact such would come quietly speaks volumes.

Finally, I am not bothered about perception. I stand to gain nothing from my stance. I actually likely stood to gain more from "joining" the establishment. But this for me, is about truth and the countless people out there who see these people as spiritual leaders and follow without understanding that they will come to Satan (or is that not what they called me) to bargain to move ahead.

If my meaning in and the significance of, that last statement slipped by you, I'm afraid I don't know what else I can say. For that is my PROBLEM here!

@ nuclearboy

But this for me, is about truth

what is truth

Oh Nuclearboy
you don't know how glad i am to watch u expose this guy named Jo. This has really put a big question mark to the person of Jo and buttress the very fact that Jo is actually not working for God but his belly.

free123:

Oh Nuclearboy
you don't know how glad i am to watch u expose this guy named Jo. This has really put a big question mark to the person of Jo and buttress the very fact that Jo is actually not working for God but his belly.

And you truly believe the only or best way to expose his character and motivation is to divulge private communication? Please.

nuclearboy:

@NLMediator:

Thanks for your response. Maybe you should ask yourself then - what made the communication private?

I expect that the maxim "it takes two to tango" still applies to humans. Or are you saying that the fact he decided to hide his true nature from others is binding on me? Do not forget that I did NOT initiate the contact and remained mainly belligerent through it. If I had initiated it, I would understand your point and see my disclosure as being possibly interpret-able as "entrapment". But I did not initiate and thus remained free of encumbrance!

Interestingly, I did ask him one thing - I would name someone IF he promised non-divulgence. He refused to give me that. Turn it around then - for he wanted freedom to do whatever he wished with whatever he learnt from me whist wishing my silence in the same instance. How apt and descriptive of the manipulative pulpits we see today - "do as I say but not as I do!", ehn?

I am not a spring-chicken, NLMediator and I do understand your point. But you are working with very very VERY little understanding of just who I was portrayed to be by same person. The fact such would come quietly speaks volumes.

Finally, I am not bothered about perception. I stand to gain nothing from my stance. I actually likely stood to gain more from "joining" the establishment. But this for me, is about truth and the countless people out there who see these people as spiritual leaders and follow without understanding that they will come to Satan (or is that not what they called me) to bargain to move ahead.

If my meaning in and the significance of, that last statement slipped by you, I'm afraid I don't know what else I can say. For that is my PROBLEM here!

I have no doubt that you mean well. I just do not think you've adopted the best approach. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss other people's perception of you. Without it, the efficacy of your communication comes into serious question. In essence, of what point is it to carry out an action if the objective is not achieved because people ignored your point, based on disagreement with your methods?

NlMediator
I think so and i strongly believe in exposing lies irrespective of how that is achieved

aletheia:

^Like the deluded Emperor you can continue to perambulate unclothed in the market place for all I care. Your poisonous brew is well known and as been recorded in different places on this forum. . .so I am not ready to oblige you. Just be informed that the time for tolerating your rubbish is over.

What is the poisonous brew. You seem to be the poison , because your likes hardly make a contribution without spewing venom. What kind of Christianity do you practice. If you believe I said something you perceive wrong in your opinion, why don't you take me on in the spirit of meekness by the undiluted word, and let the word expose the error, but rather you start name calling, because you can't stand a strait discussion , it's a sign of emptiness . You have stuff to say, say it bible way. Don't turn to street fight.

2 Timothy 2:24-25
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Does this reflect your response? Rather we  here wof , wofer, wolves,false teacher, etc because you know that when you enter abuses ,I will sign out. What are you afraid of?

@NLMediator
People's salvation is not some board game with rules. Jo is a known liar and fraud - he should be exposed by any means possible.

@Nuclearboy
You should publish some of the emails if you can - maybe it will stop this fraud from spewing out rubbish.

Joagbaje ignored my posts and stuff - others did not. If you think his perception of me means a jot to me, you're mistaken.

He made me out to be like some sort of demon - ask around to find out if that is the general perception

It is precisely for that reason that him coming privately was "funny"

nuclearboy:

Joagbaje ignored my posts and stuff - others did not. If you think his perception of me means a jot to me, you're mistaken.

He made me out to be like some sort of demon - ask around to find out if that is the general perception

It is precisely for that reason that him coming privately was "funny"

I meant the general perception of you, not one person's perception. You indicate you enjoy a good repuation around here. Don't ruin it by continuing with this reference to private communication. I'm giving a sincere advice, as I have no dog in the fight. You may be the only one that has something to lose. It may not be readily apparent now. But it'll be clearer as time goes.

EarsWide:

@NLMediator
People's salvation is not some board game with rules. Jo is a known liar and fraud - he should be exposed by any means possible.

@Nuclearboy
You should publish some of the emails if you can - maybe it will stop this fraud from spewing out rubbish.

If he's a KNOWN liar and fraud, how's divulging private communication EXPOSING him? I hope you see the contradiction.

And, btw, "by any means necessary" reflects Malcolm X. Is that where you stand on the political spectrum, as opposed to say, Martin Luther King Jr.'s?

free123:

NlMediator
I think so and i strongly believe in exposing lies irrespective of how that is achieved

You're missing the full picture. The exposure hurts the "EXPOSER." It's not good form. You may choose to disagree, especially as you have nothing to lose.

@NLMediator

If he's a KNOWN liar and fraud, how's divulging private communication EXPOSING him? I hope you see the contradiction.

There is no contradiction there at all - the more evidence the better.

Do you know Joagbaje at all ?
Do you know he has claimed he raised someone from the dead ?
Do you know he put a picture of a n*ked/semi conscious man on this forum to prove he helped the man ?

Maybe you need to look more closely at him before you rush to his defence.

^^^^^^^

Rush to his defense? Maybe, you need to start reading a bit more closely. I defended no individual. I am defending good manners.

@NLMediator

you said

Rush to his defense? Maybe, you need to start reading a bit more closely. I defended no individual. I am defending good manners.

Like I said earlier this is not a game - if to get the message across, the gloves have to come off - so be it.

NLMediator makes sense (if I was bothered about how I look). Way I see this though, (and I'm sincere about this), if required to choose between perception of me AND the opportunity to show others a way to escape Satan's trap, I'd choose the latter in a heart beat.

The penultimate post by EarsWide above gives an idea of how many see the man Joagbaje here - I sincerely do not think anybody hates him but the boasts, the manipulations, the insincerity, the lies - all of it is just ridiculous.

This is a guy who has been caught out using multiple IDs to vote for himself, to praise his own previous posts using another ID etc. This is someone who changes views as readily as you'd change a toothbrush - once used, discard it till it can move your next view/position forward. I wouldn't normally bother but for him to come here and attempt saying such as "humble yourself" HERE whist humbling himself before me outside? That took the cake - interestingly, I had actually backed down on him (an being called out twice by other posters) simply because his mails indicated desperation but to accept insujt (him wielding the big stick here before his "adoring" fans) was just too much.

I wonder if NLMediator really does get the picture here and understands why I'd throw caution to the winds

EDIT: Like EarsWide says above, "Its time the Gloves came off". They do not care whose Ox is gored as long as the crowds/money comes in. Why should I consider "manners" when someone has so thoroughly vilified himself and yet continues to have his fans? I also wonder - how do you think the firsthand observers of Christ felt when He took a whip into the Temple and used it on people? or when He called the leaders a "generation of vipers"?

NLMediator:

Generally, my take is that it is not good form to bring up the fact or content of private correspondence into the public arena. Except extraordinary circumstances warrant divulging such information, like when a life is directly at stake. E.g., somebody writes that he or another person plans to hurt Miss B or Mr. C.

My dear you don't know this fellow, his name is "Nuclearbonboi" and that is what he truely is a bonboi one that cannot be trusted by any standards once he defiled the rules on forum and  illegally gained access into Joagbaje's facebook account  and contrary to the so called rules (because nothing serious was rendered as punishment to him) was childish and cheap enough to publish photos of Jo and his church on nairaland constituting a bridge privacy.

Now to this my bonboi when will you eventually grow up because this your childishness is disgusting. At least you confirmed that you are not the only one who has had some form of contact with Joagbaje why must it be you who must act childishly

From one perspective I take NLMediator's point that many, some being unaware of Joagbaje's history here, will think it is Nuclearboy who is in the wrong. Those of us who now know Joagbaje and in particular his methods well will understand why Nuclearboy will feel that no duty of confidentiality is owed. It pains me to also say that Joagbaje is a double-dealing and double-faced person who projects the image of "meekness" and "maturity" for his own purposes. In any event the history of his posts shows that he is himself guilty of what he is now protesting about.

By the way, in relation to Joagbaje's "gospel", aletheia was quite right though Joagbaje is dissembling once again. In fact I can bet I know one of the tactics he will use: he will say for instance that he did not say Abraham was not saved but that he only said he was not "born again" and so on ad nauseam.

The bottom line is that Joagbaje's "gospel" stinks as it is full of disguised, sometimes even barely disguised, poison.

Enigma:


By the way, in relation to Joagbaje's "gospel", aletheia was quite right though Joagbaje is dissembling once again. In fact I can bet I know one of the tactics he will use: he will say for instance that he did not say Abraham was not [i]saved but that he only said he was not "born again" and so on ad nauseam.[/i]

So why not simply use the term I used?why twist the post in a lie as though joagbaje has insulted father Abraham .of course, No man got born again until Jesus shed his blood, Abraham and all the rest had nominal salvation in their day. They all got born again at the sacrifice of the blood of christ. Until Jesus died no man could be remitted of the sin nature. From Adam to the cross. If anyone say otherwise he only Insults the blood of Jesus christ.The blood of st is what reconciled man back to God.

Hebrews 9:22
. . .and without shedding of blood is no remission. . 

Colossians 1:20
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Hebrews 9:15
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Romans 5:18
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Jesus had said "if I be lifted up (on the cross) I will draw ALL men. . ."

I asked a question which nobody could answer , if it's possible to be saved or born again without the blood of Jesus, of what necessity is his death, why did he need to shed his blood if men could be saved without it, his death was in vain.

The bottom line is that Joagbaje's "gospel" stinks as it is full of disguised, sometimes even barely disguised, poison.

That's you guys opinion. God doesn't see it so.

"I asked a question which nobody could answer , if it's possible to be saved or born again without the blood of Jesus, of what necessity is his death, why did he need to shed his blood if men could be saved without it, his death was in vain."

I'm still studying this issue and claim no deep knowledge of any sort. But could a possible answer be that Jesus' physical visit to earth and the accompanying death were to provide the salvation experience already being enjoyed by some Jews to non-Jews?

@Joagbaje

Regarding your "gospel", so

1. Was Jesus "born again"?
2. Did Jesus go to hell where he was tortured by satan and demons?


I'll confine myself to these two examples for now and leave other things that you have said or not denied till later.

You should quote my post rather and let me explain