Azibalua:

This question has been left unanswered
Let's add to it
@ davidylan
1- do you have a pastor
2- do you participate in evangelism

1. yes
2. yes

Answer to question earlier in your quote - yes.

Next?

Deepsight and noetic16 - una welcome back oh!

^ Oya u sef, hit me email, make I gather PHD friend abeg.

@joagbaje

was it Jesus or Judas who made the statement about selling the perfume and giving it to the poor?

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. (John 12:4-6)

^^^

diluminati:

@joagbaje
was it Jesus or Judas who made the statement about selling the perfume and giving it to the poor?

It was illuminati ! .

So is that what the thread was about ? Because I called Jesus? But it should be obvious I didn't mean it that way. Maybe I should have rephrased it by saying "it's obvious Jesus ministry sold some stuff"
I didn't intend to say Jesus carry bell "gbanjo gbanjo" come and buy golden earring .

Joagbaje:

^^^
It was illuminati ! .

[s]So is that what the thread was about ? Because I called Jesus?[/s]  But it should be obvious I didn't mean it that way. Maybe I should have rephrased it by saying "it's obvious Jesus ministry sold some stuff"
I didn't intend to say Jesus carry bell "gbanjo gbanjo" come and buy golden earring .

You said Jesus definitely sold some stuff and you made one of many references to this part of the scripture that Jesus permitted the disciples to sell the perfume. But it wasn't Jesus who said that, it was Judas. Did you make a mistake?

@ diluminati,

Let me answer for Joe. Did he make mistake? YES. I think he already answered the kweshion. Kindly let go off this matter and let's kill this thread. Thanks

Joagbaje:

So is that what the thread was about ? Because I called Jesus? But it should be obvious I didn't mean it that way. Maybe I should have rephrased it by saying "it's obvious Jesus ministry sold some stuff"
I didn't intend to say Jesus carry bell "gbanjo gbanjo" come and buy golden earring .

That is Joagbaje's answer. He already answered the kweshion. Apology accepted Mr. Joagbaje but make you no talk that kind talk again o,lol

davidylan:

1. yes
2. yes
Answer to question earlier in your quote - yes.

Givers don't criticise other givers
If u were under a pastor you will not speak wrongly of men of god, but rather ask your pastor intelligent questions when you have questions
If u have been involved in evangelism you would have known that it cost a lot

noetic16:

I am humbled lol . . . You retain deep admiration from myself.

I am hoping to debate with mazaje again on this forum, and hopefully expose his ignorance repeatedly

Its good to be back.

Yes ohh. . . . .looking forward to that. . .

Azibalua, abi na Joagbaje. Na wa o, must evangelism be costly? Evangelism becomes costly when you use carnal means like trying to buy over people to your church. Or leaving your village church and asking for sponsor/partners to go and reach the dying souls in London and New York. That's definitely costly but not required.

Joagbaje, why all the lengthy serious debate if you knew you made a mistake from the beginning? a mistake of saying Jesus definitely sold some stuff? are you just going to let us help you slip by so easily? so we should just forget that a pastor made this grave error? don't you think you need reassessment of your goals, your dreams and your religious stand? dont you think you need to review your allegiance to Chris Oyakhilome?

Aaaarrrrgggggghhhhh! I just CANNOT take this anymore!

1. What the hell is the difference between Jesus seeling stuff and "his ministry" selling stuff? ? ? ? Even in the context of the particular discussion it was always about the propriety of a ministry selling stuff, no? So a refernce to Jesus' ministry doing such is not misrepresented when it is said that Jesus did such.

2. It is more than obvious, save to the willful ostrich, that the question regarding selling perfume would not have been put if it were not a practice already.

3. There is nothing wrong with it! - - - save if there is an attempt to use such simple and necessary trade as justification for the unbridled commercialism of today's churches. That, of course, would be wrong.

Image123:

newmi link=topic=886109.msg10342653#msg10342653 date=1331050640:

Mark 2:15
"And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him"
Now this an objective thought, doesn't the reference above support the notion that Jesus could possibly could have had a house

Even a casual english literate knows that scripture refers to Levi's house. A supposed student of the Bible has taken the 'take it or leave it' approach.

@Image123,

You bear an 'image', please be gentle with newmi.

Perhaps what you might have done in your counter argument is point out HOW and WHY newmi's verse of Mark 2:15 does not establish that 'Jesus could possibly have had a house' - i.e., a personally rented house of His own.

"And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him"

So, Mark 2:15 - Jesus own house? Answer: Definitely NOT.

WHY and HOW?
Because other passages in the NT have direct bearing on that event and show that the 'house' belonged to someone else - Levi.

Please read and compare between Mark 2:14-15 and Luke 5:29-30 >>

MARK 2:14-15:

[v. 14] And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
[v. 15] And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

compare with -

LUKE 5:27-29:

[v. 27] And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
[v. 28] And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
[v. 29] And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.

Luke 5:29 explains Mark 2:15 and shows that 'his own house' is a reference to Levi, not Jesus. Further, it is commonly believed that the same Levi is MATTHEW, who later became one os His disciples (please see Matthew 9:9-10). So, it was Matthew's house that such verses as Mark 2:15 was pointing to.

This is one way of showing that the said house being argued did not belong to Jesus as His personally rented apartment, and hence CANNOT be used to justify a fallacious argument around which house Jesus dwelt in or had as His own.

wordtalk:

This is one way of showing that the said house being argued did not belong to Jesus as His personally rented apartment, and hence CANNOT be used to justify a fallacious argument around which house Jesus dwelt in or had as His own.

In view of all this, the question still remains: did Jesus Himself have any place of abode while he was on earth? What was His residential or 'postal' address?

Some use verses like Luke 9:58 and Matthew 8:20 to justify the argument that Jesus was 'homeless' (to put it bluntly). But do these verses actually teach that Jesus had no place or home of His own?

I think that such texts as Luke 9:58 et al do not prove conclusively that Jesus had no home of His own - whether one which He owned personally or shared with His disciples/apostles. What those verses demonstrate is the style of Jesus classic answer in parabolic manner to intriguing questions of discipleship. The quip that 'the Son of man hath not where to lay his head' cannot be used to justify a 'homeless' Saviour any more than it could be used to say that He had no place where He ever slept.

On the contrary, when some early converts asked Him, 'Rabbi, . . . where dwellest thou?' His answer was: 'Come and see.' Consequently, 'they came and saw WHERE HE DWELT, and abode with Him that day' - read John 1:38-39.

It is remarkable here that when asked pointedly about where He dwelt/lived, Jesus did not reply as in Luke 9:58, 'the Son of man hath not where to lay his head'. Rather, He took them to the place where He dwelt - and these disciples dwelt with Him there that day.

It is crucial to note that we are not told exactly where this dwelling place was. All we can say here is that such verses as Luke 9:58 do not prove that Jesus had no home - on the contrary, John 1:38-39 indicate at the very least that He had place where He formerly dwelt. Further, some are inclined to say that other verses as Matthew 9:28; 13:1 & 36 (with reference to 'the house') are ancillary to the point that Jesus had His own house or dwelling place.

Bottomline: Luke 9:58 does not prove that Jesus had no home - that was usually His classic retort/reply to enquirers who express eagerness to be discipled to Him without having counted the cost. Besides that verse, others raise the question as to where He actually dwelt, and what is meant by 'the house' in those other passages.

hmmm you know a fruit by the tree that bore it. seems there has been a precedence of false analysis of the scriptures from these two christ embassy peeps for a long while now. i guess it speaks a lot more about their pastor who mentors them.

davidylan:


Deepsight and noetic16 - una welcome back oh!

uncle dafidi . . . longest time

. . .interesting to note so many old names on this thread.

@wordtalk (formerly known as Viaro): where hast thou been? Welcome.

wordtalk:

Even a casual english literate knows that scripture refers to Levi's house. A supposed student of the Bible has taken the 'take it or leave it' approach.


@Image123,

You bear an 'image', please be gentle with newmi.

Perhaps what you might have done in your counter argument is point out HOW and WHY newmi's verse of Mark 2:15 does not establish that 'Jesus could possibly have had a house' - i.e., a personally rented house of His own.

"And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him"

So, Mark 2:15 - Jesus own house? Answer: Definitely NOT.

WHY and HOW?
Because other passages in the NT have direct bearing on that event and show that the 'house' belonged to someone else - Levi.

Please read and compare between Mark 2:14-15 and Luke 5:29-30 >>
compare with -
Luke 5:29 explains Mark 2:15 and shows that 'his own house' is a reference to Levi, not Jesus. Further, it is commonly believed that the same Levi is MATTHEW, who later became one os His disciples (please see Matthew 9:9-10). So, it was Matthew's house that such verses as Mark 2:15 was pointing to.

This is one way of showing that the said house being argued did not belong to Jesus as His personally rented apartment, and hence CANNOT be used to justify a fallacious argument around which house Jesus dwelt in or had as His own.

wordtalk:

Even a casual english literate knows that scripture refers to Levi's house. A supposed student of the Bible has taken the 'take it or leave it' approach.


@Image123,

You bear an 'image', please be gentle with newmi.

Perhaps what you might have done in your counter argument is point out HOW and WHY newmi's verse of Mark 2:15 does not establish that 'Jesus could possibly have had a house' - i.e., a personally rented house of His own.

"And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him"

So, Mark 2:15 - Jesus own house? Answer: Definitely NOT.

WHY and HOW?
Because other passages in the NT have direct bearing on that event and show that the 'house' belonged to someone else - Levi.

Please read and compare between Mark 2:14-15 and Luke 5:29-30 >>
compare with -
Luke 5:29 explains Mark 2:15 and shows that 'his own house' is a reference to Levi, not Jesus. Further, it is commonly believed that the same Levi is MATTHEW, who later became one os His disciples (please see Matthew 9:9-10). So, it was Matthew's house that such verses as Mark 2:15 was pointing to.

This is one way of showing that the said house being argued did not belong to Jesus as His personally rented apartment, and hence CANNOT be used to justify a fallacious argument around which house Jesus dwelt in or had as His own.

Don't mind me wordtalk. Newmi was expected to know better than such 'school boy' error. No be them type dey downgrade 'baby food'? Anyways, loved ya exposee, welcamm.

diluminati:

Joagbaje, why all the lengthy serious debate if you knew you made a mistake from the beginning? a mistake of saying Jesus definitely sold some stuff?

I didn't say I made a mistake. I only rephrased for the sake of people like you. Who seem to be slow to see the point

are you just going to let us help you slip by so easily? so we should just forget that a pastor made this grave error? don't you think you need reassessment of your goals, your dreams and your religious stand? dont you think you need to review your allegiance to Chris Oyakhilome?

Stop getting personal with me.

Deep Sight:

Aaaarrrrgggggghhhhh! I just CANNOT take this anymore!

1. What the hell is the difference between Jesus seeling stuff and "his ministry" selling stuff? ? ? ? Even in the context of the particular discussion it was always about the propriety of a ministry selling stuff, no? So a refernce to Jesus' ministry doing such is not misrepresented when it is said that Jesus did such.

2. It is more than obvious, save to the willful ostrich, that the question regarding selling perfume would not have been put if it were not a practice already.

3. There is nothing wrong with it! - - - save if there is an attempt to use such simple and necessary trade as justification for the unbridled commercialism of today's churches. That, of course, would be wrong.

This was just the simple point I made . I wonder why many seem to wrestle with it.

^ Jesus DEFINITELY sold stuff is simple. Well, in KJV english context, definitely maybe.

^^^ You dey mind am!

Jesus definitely sold some stuff is pretty straightforward.

Instead of owning up honourably, he is wriggling; worsened when you consider that the context was to defend the merchandising of the gospel.

noetic16:

uncle dafidi . . . longest time

bros, i take style hail oh!

Azibalua:

Givers don't criticise other givers

Paul criticized Peter.

Azibalua:

If u were under a pastor you will not speak wrongly of men of god, but rather ask your pastor intelligent questions when you have questions

this is nothing but a demonic way of making sure that no one holds men of "gawd" accountable for leading the sheep astray and is clearly unbiblical.
Here is Paul asking his followers to judge his words by the standard of the scriptures - 1 Cor 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

Here is Titus is a clear command to rebuke those who lead others into error - Titus 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Azibalua:

If u have been involved in evangelism you would have known that it cost a lot

Evangelism is only costly when you leave the unsaved in Ijebu Igbo to preach to the over-churched in NewYork, London and Paris. Evangelism is costly when you leave that unsaved neighbour you could have spoken to at the coffee shop to reach the over-preached to on the costliest national TV network all for the sake of increasing your own fame and the size of your pocket.

Let's mind our thoughts so dat we don't blasphem

@Joagbaje,
To draw that Jesus "definitely" sold some stuff from the quoted scripture isn't accurate.

i get your point, we can infer that at some point, it is possible they sold some of their possessions/gifts they recieved to meet other needs in which case is still different from the selling that happens these days.

but when a pastor is attacked for selling books and tapes. Attackers don't consider he is not the actual person doing the sales rather its his members. Thesis double standard judgment.

This thread got me but with tears in my heart. Jesus "definitely" sold some stuff

ApostlePat:
This thread got me but with tears in my heart. Jesus "definitely" sold some stuff

Why apostle?

Knight1:
@Joagbaje,
To draw that Jesus "definitely" sold some stuff from the quoted scripture isn't accurate.

It was a common practice in their time

Luke 12:33
Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Matthew 26:9
For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.