Enigma:

Ephesians 2

@Enigma,
Thanks for the maturity of posting the scripture. There are actually a lot of other scriptures in the New Testament that shows that we can receive the righteousness of God as a gift through His Son Jesus Christ.

My question to Nuclearboy was how did the 3 men he mentioned have this 'gift' when it was clearly stated that the gift is received through Jesus Christ. I quoted the scriptures as to why they were seen as righteous but Nuclearboy mixed it up and turned on himself.

There is a clear difference between the two and this was what I needed to understand.
However, not surprised he acted as he is known to act in the forum. Very immature.

Jesus is the seed that was promised since genesis. It is the seed that would break the head of the serpent who had corrupted human race. So all the good deed of men before christ came were only temporarily acceptable. They still had the nature of sin in their spirit. They could not pass on to heaven. All were waiting for the second Adam who will bring perfection. They were held against their will in hell. Hell had 2 compartment. The first is paradise, the second is the place of torment. In paradise , the righteous saints were held, but they were not in fire nor any suffering. But the other side had fire wheere the wicked go. So Abraham was not burning in hell.

Snowwy:

@Enigma,
Thanks for the maturity of posting the scripture. There are actually a lot of other scriptures in the New Testament that shows that we can receive the righteousness of God as a gift through His Son Jesus Christ.

My question to Nuclearboy was how did the 3 men he mentioned have this 'gift' when it was clearly stated that the gift is received through Jesus Christ. I quoted the scriptures as to why they were seen as righteous but Nuclearboy mixed it up and turned on himself.

There is a clear difference between the two and this was what I needed to understand.
However, not surprised he acted as he is known to act in the forum. Very immature.

Easy: Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. In addition to what I posted before, ponder also:

2 Timothy 1

So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

Titus 3

4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Surely, you are not going to say that Abraham "worked" for his own righteousness, for his own salvation

Enigma:

Easy: Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. In addition to what I posted before, ponder also:

2 Timothy 1

Titus 3
Surely, you are not going to say that Abraham "worked" for his own righteousness, for his own salvation

@Enigma,
Did you really mean the bolded? Please show me where it was stated in the bible for my learning, that was Christ was slain before the world was founded.

How were people in the OT, before the law, known as righteous? For Abraham, He believed God, there was really no mention of works. He believed God.
For Enoch, it shows he 'walked' with God not 'worked' with or for God.

^^^ Was Christ not slain before the foundation of the world?

Enigma:

^^^ Was Christ not slain before the foundation of the world?

Was he? That is why I asked you, you said it. I only asked for scripture for my learning.

OK try this one then: Rev 13:8

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Revelation 13:8
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

It is an allegory . I don't know if I use the right English term . It is based on a foreknowledge of God. There was no physical lamb slain
Were we not choosing before the foundation of the world too?. (according to his fore knowledge)

Ephesians 1:4
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Does that mean we were born again before we came. It was settled in the mind of God but not yet a physical reality until we confesss the lorship of christ and receiving eternal life. Besides the term doesn't explicitly mean "before the world was created " in all passage. Sometimes it just mean "far back."

Luke 11:50
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

^^ Don't go and answer the two questions I've been asking! Remember what I said: if you remain evasive on them, you prove yourself to be a liar once again for denying aletheia's post.

@Enignma,
Thanks.
I see and understand the scripture pasted. However, I see there has been an interpretation above.
For me, you have given me a scripture-backed statement as requested.

I also see that scripture as;

Hebrews 9:24-26:

24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself

and also knowing that God calls those things which are not as though they were basically beacuse He had chosen Christ:

1 peter 1:20:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
However, I still appreciate. It is an interesting discourse.

^^^ And once you have Joagbaje's or Oyakhilome's interpretation, that is the end of the matter?

Enigma:

^^^ And once you have Joagbaje's or Oyakhilome's interpretation, that is the end of the matter?

Ofcourse not.
DId I or did I not show you my interpretation from the bible or did I tell you Joe's interpretation was right?

I think you should stop making everything about Jo or Pastor Chris and respond to other posters who might have another interpretation as should be.

Please for once make it about the scripture.

Timothy is an exhortation whist Revelation is more a prophetic book. In both Pauls' wisdom and God's direct understanding, we are told that Christ's sacrifice was accomplished at the beginning of time and NOT when He said "it is finished".

I think the problem with these guys is exactly what they would hang on other necks - "BABY TEETH". They think about God and His Word in "man" thoughts/time.

"I ate Rice now" means to a "man" that recently I ate the food whist with God, a statement like "You are blessed" means it is done EVEN if you are currently feeling like the most cursed pathetic human ever created.Once He says/determines it, it is done and the Word tells us simply "My ways and not your ways". What the true mature Christian does is compare Spiritual with Spiritual.

As Far as the Bible is concerned, the Lamb was sacrificed at the beginning - fini. LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE - ENOCH WAS SAVED- How, if the Bible says the best of Man's righteousness is like a filthy rag? The only way is if God imputed righteousness to him!

@Joagbaje:

Thank you for clearing my Name and clarifying that I did not lie unlike what your prior post suggested. I was worried if my eyes deceived me and went back to check and was relieved to see I wasn't (though I have NO qualms about apologizing unlike some people who must never be wrong).

My question as posed earlier still remains - did you ever consider that God may have created you to be greater than whatever you think oyaks is? And that Paul went through a life as Saul before turning to "TRUE" truth?

Snowwy:

Ofcourse not.
DId I or did I not show you my interpretation from the bible or did I tell you Joe's interpretation was right?

I think you should stop making everything about Jo or Pastor Chris and respond to other posters who might have another interpretation as should be.

Please for once make it about the scripture.

You come across a piece of scripture for the first time (apparently); my expectation would be that you would take your time to go and study it; but you immediately referred me to Joagbaje's (i.e. Oyakhilome's) interpretation! What do you want me to make of that?

OK, I'll leave it and just say this: go and take your time to study the passage (independently and free from RoR); use a concordance to trace related concepts and scriptures --- then form a view.

Then come back and say if you believe that Abraham's righteousness was because he "worked" for it or was a gift.

^^ Please ask him also to study the concept of Christ's Sacrifice and why He said "Abraham rejoiced to see My day" - which day?

I also wonder what these guys make of the concept of the "Elect" and why the Bible says EVERYONE ELSE will serve/worship the beast?

@ Nuclearboy -

Sincerely my shock is simply that one would divulge any details of a private communication. I simply feel that that is ungentlemanly, unethical and below the belt. This is my sincere feeling, and I personally would not do such. I tell you this in good faith.

The truth is that you guys have a lot of disagreements with Jo's views on scripture. I urge you to understand that it is perfectly permissible to have different understandings of scripture. The mere fact of a different view of scripture is no reason for the level of invective I have seen consistently directed at Jo. You could point out your disagreements and educate the public civilly on your views which you believe are the correct interpretations. Everyone is entitled to his view.

And I say to you very sincerely: when we speak about the interpretation of scripture, in most of what Jo writes, all that is obvious to the calm and non-participatory observer is that you simply have different views: I say to you that if you would be less emotional, you might see that there is a lot that Jo writes that is very tenable indeed. I thus find it extremely hard to understand the agression and vitriol.

Different views are different views. It particularly strikes me because virtually everything that I see Jo argue, he argues with the aid and defense of scripture which he quotes. I remember once I went into detail to describe why I did not see anything unscriptural in some of the teachings you pointed out.

I say this to you in all calm sincerity. I am aware that you have always imputed some sinister motive to me for speaking on the positive side of Jo - but there is none whatsoever. I do not wish you to waste any time imagining that there is any such elusive motive on my part: I am telling in absolute honesty and sincerity as I see it.

I have gone through Jo's posts again on this thread and sincerey, maybe I am the one lacking deep sight, but I have not seen any heresy in what he has argued, and indeed there has been a good deal of scripture in support. So it is obvious that you simply have different views, which is allowed, and there is no reason to get angry, insultive or ungentlemanly in that regard.

I am sure that justification by works under the OT law is a subject that you will agree many people could legitimatley have diverse views on. Stop for a moment and examine your own views on the subject and then ask yourself which sounds most fantastical?

@Enigma,
You have such strong held assumptions about some things and I think you should not blame me for that.

I respected your understanding of that scripture and told so and what I understood from it based on the bible and the best you could say is that I should study the passage independent from ROR? It goes to show how subjective you are.

If any scripture that does not go in line with what you believe in comes from ROR, then it shows you cannot seem to see past CE.
Too bad.

Nah, I did not make an assumption. I formed that view based on two things: (a) your choosing immediately to refer me to Joagbaje/Oyakhilome's interpretation, and (b) my experience of your posts and actions in the past.

One example, I'll ask it as a question: do you still believe that Christians should not pray to or through Jesus Christ?

Snowwy:


I think you should stop making everything about Jo or Pastor Chris and respond to other posters who might have another interpretation as should be.

Please for once make it about the scripture.

This is the point I have been dwelling upon. Let's dwell on scriptures not personalities.  Ogoamka is not a cec member, snowwy is not a cec. Snowwy is not a double of newmi, snowwy has been on NL many years before I ever showed up.  We may not agree on all point. And every one who hold similar view with me should not be linked to CEC .let's leave church out of discussion. Deal with me by scriptures and I deal with you by scriptures . Let's leave labelling. Let's give room for correction and acceptance . If you dwell on insult ,if the other person sees he had been wrong ,will the atmosphere created give room for one to admit to be wrong?

^^And when we deal with you by scripture you run away, keep quiet for a few days, then resume spreading the same poison. Example (at the running away stage) on this very thread.

@DeepSight:

Its instructive that this thread is named AFTER Joagbaje just like I did way back with "How Joagbaje became God". I think that in itself explains that this is about a person, a personality and assessments of that personality.

Let us leave semantics and come down to brass tacks. you may not be aware but Aletheia is the person who's posts I most align with on NairaLand. Yet even he and I have had disagreements on this forum so I totally agree about the issue of differing views. Now to Jo and what you think is vitriol against him

Claims : -> Jo is a pastor. A Christian. A mature one and a sincere person.

Issue: -> What are the characteristics of Sincere Mature Christian pastors

As simply as possible -
1. Fear of God
2. Honesty
3. True sincerity
4. refusal to hobnob with evil and/or evil semblances
5. I could go on but you catch the drift

Questions: ->

Do people who fear God manipulate His Word? i.e. say one thing today and another tomorrow? Or equate themselves with Him? etc
Do honest people use multiple IDs to provide THEMSELVES with support? Do they say "he could have lied his head off" then back down at the threat of further disclosure and attempt to "damage control". Would such a lie have been exposed if I didn't become "ungentlemanly"?
Do sincere people turn truth on its head?
Do sincere Christians support God/Christ OR avoid such only to become vociferous when defending their pastor "god"
Jo said I was evil - why go outside to hobnob with evil. If I didn't say so, would anyone believe his "godship" was coming to my "demonship" for help surreptitiously?

Its sad that you look at these issues from a purely legal point of view- we see the poison, the untruth etc. Which of the questions I state above would you attribute to someone you consider a true reflection of Jesus (even whist not being A believer). Now if I cannot find Christian attributes (aside preaching and anyone can do that - plus its not even a Christian attribute), why should I see you as Christian? And if you then are not a Christian, should I allow things stand as "To each his own" and allow you teach "anti-TRUE-Christian" stuff when I am supposed to be my brother's keeper?

I backed down on Joagbaje for awhile, DS, and I backed down immediately because I got the impression the dude was listening and understanding that for us (me), the issue was about returning the societal perception of what we believe, to what the Bible shows us. Purity, honesty, LOVE. Today, do you not know that some churches have reputations for "immorality"; others for fraud, violence, theft etc? How pure, honest and loving does that make Church/Christianity look? How edifying is that for any sincere person?

How would you feel if your chambers/office had a couple of guys who repeatedly went out and defrauded clients in your name? Would your partners keep quiet simply because "they are lawyers like us"? What would that do to the reputation of your firm? How long would your firm stomach it? Would you be angry with your firm for involving police or failing that, for asking them to stop and at their refusal, dissociating the rest of the firm from their activities?

Paris10 just started a thread "the more he sees, the less church appeals" or something like that - why? What is disgusting us INSIDE God's House? We all work for profit and wish prosperity- at what cost? Justice denied to others? Poverty guaranteed to others? Would you kill simply to buy "another" car or sleep with another woman?

Why should we keep quiet whist they have a right to pretend piety and dish out poison for self gain? Do you know that ACCORDING to the Bible, Christians are judged NOT by talk but by Fruit? So please tell me what manner of Christian [1] lies [2] manipulates [3] pretends [4] worships man and cash rather than God (worship is not talk but action). Would you call this "Christian" a man after Gods' Heart? We all strive but some strive and deliberately so, for the wrong things! So yes, you are right this is emotional - but it is true! And despising one man/movement is better than despising the entirety of society by looking on whist evil reigns

Further on whether Abraham's righteousness was a gift or he "worked" for it, let us also note the following for the records:

Romans 4

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works . . .

Is this passage not saying that Abraham's righteousness was a gift.  Oh, and David says the person to whom God credits righteousness is "blessed" --- do people also "work" for the blessing?


@Snowwy

Meanwhile, if you do have a moment, please address this question that I asked in post #113: do you still believe that Christians should not pray to or through Jesus Christ?

nuclearboy:

@DeepSight:

Claims : -> Jo is a pastor. A Christian. A mature one and a sincere person.

Issue: -> What are the characteristics of Sincere Mature Christian pastors

As simply as possible -
1. Fear of God
2. Honesty
3. True sincerity
4. refusal to hobnob with evil and/or evil semblances
5. I could go on but you catch the drift

You know very well that only God can be the judge of such things.

And if you then are not a Christian, should I allow things stand as "To each his own" and allow you teach "anti-TRUE-Christian" stuff when I am supposed to be my brother's keeper?

What you could do is to civilly point out the errors in his assertions, and, backing your views with scripture, thereby educate and enlighten the flock.

How would you feel if your chambers/office had a couple of guys who repeatedly went out and defrauded clients in your name? Would your partners keep quiet simply because "they are lawyers like us"? What would that do to the reputation of your firm? How long would your firm stomach it? Would you be angry with your firm for involving police or failing that, for asking them to stop and at their refusal, dissociating the rest of the firm from their activities?

The proper analogy would be to say that there are attorneys in my law firm who have different LEGAL views from me on LEGAL issues, and have different interpretations of the law than I do. (Joagbaje has different RELIGIOUS views and interpretations from you). In that event I will simply make my own arguments based on the law and legal principles only. That is what you need to do. Nothing else.

^^ Not too surprised. Especially at your desire to take the bite away from my allegory and water it down.

Questions are simply

1. Is said dude a biblical example of a Christian with what we've seen? Pls do not make me go thru the entire hog of multiple ids , lies etc again.

2. Can the blind lead the blind successfully? At least, according to the Bible since you have alternative viewpoint?

3. Are his reputation and emotions of more weight than the hundreds following these erroneous teachings and getting into problems?

4. What would a decent DeepSight say about someone who professes enmity publicly but befriends him privately? That he is a lovely chap of upstanding morals and character, perhaps?

I see people saying Bankole ought not be made an example because he's a youth, he's yoruba, he's egba etc - do you think so too even if he is FOUND guilty - cos you see jo as a victim forgetting those who'd otherwise benefit from truth. By the way, he was FOUND guilty of the things I stated above.

Finally, what do I stand gain FOR MYSELF from all this? I own no church and collect no gifts. . Look at Jo's side of the divide

nuclearboy:

^^ Not too surprised. Especially at your desire to take the bite away from my allegory and water it down.

You know that is the proper analogy.

Questions are simply

1. Is said dude a biblical example of a Christian with what we've seen? Pls do not make me go thru the entire hog of multiple ids , lies etc again.

2. Can the blind lead the blind successfully? At least, according to the Bible since you have alternative viewpoint?

3. Are his reputation and emotions of more weight than the hundreds following these erroneous teachings and getting into problems?

The simple [point is that fair arguments can be made without vitriol. In so doing, you could wage a decent and gentlemanly campaign against that which you think is wrong. Think: Mahatma Ghandi's non-violent resistance.

4. What would a decent DeepSight say about someone who professes enmity publicly but befriends him privately? That he is a lovely chap of upstanding morals and character, perhaps?

I don't know much about the history of your relationship with Jo. But what I have witnessed is that I have scarcely seen him bandying any vitriolic insults even when the same has been heaped on him in gargantuan quantities consistently. I thus doubt that he will call you his "enemy", though I may be wrong. I don't see anything wrong in reaching out to you privately. Depending on the words used, reaching out to a vehement critic might actually be a great thing to do. But the caveat is that I am not in a position to comment since I do not know what he wrote to you. But I strongly believe that you ought to have played teh dignified gentleman by keeping private communication private. There is nothing in his posts which you cannot rebutt by fairscriptural arguments without a need to "spill the beans" on any private communication. That really does not look good on anybody - and it never wil, so I am surprised to see Aleth and Enigma endorse that. But they are entitled to their views. For me, I think its unsporting.

On the issue of salvation in the OT and NT, I think both sides make some valid points. The only thing I'm missing from this discussion, especially with the vehemence that surrounds it is: of what relevance is it to anybody today? I know that it's always good to know the things of God as much as we can. But everybody on earth today gets saved looking at what Jesus did at calvary 2000 years ago. So, the distinction of whether people got saved before Jesus came is of no import to anyone born since he came. For the people born before he came, they're not here to benefit from this discussion, and their fate has been decided, regardless of who's right. So, is there more to this discussion that some of us need to know? If it's just to uphold Biblical truth, does it warrant the kind of fighting that should be reserved for matters of (spiritual) life and death?

Joagbaje:

This is the point I have been dwelling upon. Let's dwell on scriptures not personalities. Ogoamka is not a cec member, snowwy is not a cec. Snowwy is not a double of newmi, snowwy has been on NL many years before I ever showed up. We may not agree on all point. And every one who hold similar view with me should not be linked to CEC .let's leave church out of discussion. Deal with me by scriptures and I deal with you by scriptures . Let's leave labelling. Let's give room for correction and acceptance . If you dwell on insult ,if the other person sees he had been wrong ,will the atmosphere created give room for one to admit to be wrong?

This is an acceptable rule of engagement. Does anybody validly object to this?

Deep Sight:

You know very well that only God can be the judge of such things.

What you could do is to civilly point out the errors in his assertions, and, backing your views with scripture, thereby educate and enlighten the flock.

The proper analogy would be to say that there are attorneys in my law firm who have different LEGAL views from me on LEGAL issues, and have different interpretations of the law than I do. (Joagbaje has different RELIGIOUS views and interpretations from you). In that event I will simply make my own arguments based on the law and legal principles only. That is what you need to do. Nothing else.

The analogy is apt. But I think the reason there seem to be much fighting is that one side thinks it's not just about views, but also about actions. Or more precisely, wrong actions. In which case, it calls for more than a debate and resulting disagreements. I still would prefer we face the views and leave actions that we do not have proof of, outside of discussions here. I think our interactions would be the richer for that.

^^ I would accept the above but have a few issues

1. Jo will as I said, snidely state something then disappear with his gang taking over to cause confusion and ensure you can no longer follow the flow. There is an amazing example of this behavior on the thread titled "When did the Apostles become born-again". I wish someone would post the link to that thread here - I think it was page 8 (not sure when they came in and displayed this)

2. Why does Jo have the right to say anyone here is not a Christian or has NOT received the Holy Spirit but we do not have the right to prove that he it is indeed, that is not. Fruits count, not gist so we look at the conclusions evidenced clearly from his history here rather than avoid such when they are beacons telling us who he is. Why doesn't DS complain when Jo calls people "Spiritual Vagabonds" but slinks away when the EXACT SAME CRITERIA IS MATCHED BY CHRIS OYAKILOME?

3. Even on this thread and as Enigma has pointed out, Jo will request "scriptural" refutations solely and immediately, his gang rush in. If this does not debar you and you get your point across, he slinks away, avoids the thread and a few days later, appears on another thread saying exactly the same thing. At the same time, his gang scatter the previous thread so that whatever you said becomes history. That is manipulative deceit - what ought we call a deceiver (especially one using the Name of God to perform his antics)?

DeepSight is about debates. But this is not about debates for Christians - its about the lives and the salvation of people. A view that I have right to lie, steal, manipulate and cheat is NOT a Christian view - thats why the DeepSight analogy is wrong. And educating the flock is even easier - show them that their leader is blind and will lead them to perdition, not rub bhis back with endless debates that get nowhere.

A lot of threads here will prove that point to you - you suddenly start getting questions like Azibula asking "What is truth?" then mabel saying "this is a poverty mentality", then newmi shows up with "I spit on this". Meanwhile, Jo keeps spreading poison.

By the way, on PROOF - Jo himself dares not refute that he has posted as "Joagbaje", "mabel" and "Akhozem" AT LEAST! As Akhozem, he praised himself (Joagbaje). As mabell, he supported "Joagbaje". so we're not talking about suppositions but reality. And Atheists are watching & mocking!

@Nuke, i have to say i agree with DS & NLMediator on this disclosure thing. Is Jo really worth the exposure? i don't think so. i beg you, let it go.

nuclearboy:

A lot of threads here will prove that point to you - you suddenly start getting questions like Azibula asking "What is truth?" then mabel saying "this is a poverty mentality", then newmi shows up with "I spit on this". Meanwhile, Jo keeps spreading poison.

This should not bother you Nuke.

nuclearboy:

^^ I would accept the above but have a few issues

1. Jo will as I said, snidely state something then disappear with his gang taking over to cause confusion and ensure you can no longer follow the flow. There is an amazing example of this behavior on the thread titled "When did the Apostles become born-again". I wish someone would post the link to that thread here - I think it was page 8 (not sure when they came in and displayed this)

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-14267.288.html

This is why I said that we need a compendium of his contributions to NL. There is so much stuff and as time goes on it'll become harder and harder to find and they'll find it easier to deny things that they have said or done.

People said that I was being vindictive to the guy, but actually it goes beyond personal matters. There are souls at stake and it is only fair that someone coming unto NL for the first time can quickly make references. It took me over half an hour to find the link above.

The page is so sinister in the way they totally dabaru-ed the thread in a completely organised fashion. It is actually one of the greatest evidences against them of how insidious they are. From discussing biblical points they unleashed mayhem on the thread by giving pointless anecdotes about how they save souls and this that and the other which had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
It leaves you will a sense of foreboding. Very Cultish.