PrinceEmek's Posts
Nairaland Forum / PrinceEmek's Profile / PrinceEmek's Posts
(1) (2) (of 2 pages)
 Religion / Re: Who Can Tell Me Where God Is? by PrinceEmek: 5:33pm On Aug 25, 2010 |
Cmarketer: Cmarketer; If you are seriously looking for him, I’ll save you the trip and the hassle. Don’t go anywhere; don’t do anything. Just sit tight. The one, whom you seek, left this message: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44). I guess the Father will draw you when it’s your turn. I said not to go anywhere because he also said: “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here [is] Christ; or, lo, [he is] there; believe [him] not” ( Mar 13:21). But while you wait, there’s this book he left. He said to read it and do what he commanded therein. The book is called the Bible. All you need to do is ready yourself. When it’s your time, he’ll knock. Just make certain you are on hand to open the door. Gook luck. |
| Religion / Re: Seyibrown Come And Defend Your Faith. by PrinceEmek: 5:09pm On Aug 24, 2010 |
Rhino.3dm, bro; All I’m doing here is peddling fairness, and brokering courtesy and civility. Your attempt to stifle everybody doesn’t guarantee those. Just level the playing field, and I’ll be glad to take a seat on the bleachers. Besides, I may learn a thing or two. Regarding your invitation to take the stage, I’m sorry to decline. I simply cannot take you up on your challenge. I wish I could, but I just can’t. I have a pretty good idea where you are headed with this snare you have fashioned. The way I see it, you desire to pitch the bible against the Quran. I know the bible very well, but I can’t say the same of the Quran. I’m therefore ill equipped to argue any point about it. Nothing sounds more ridiculous than a man debating a subject he is absolutely ignorant about. By the way, is there an English version of the Quran, in print or online? I’d like to take a look at that book. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 9:20pm On Aug 23, 2010 |
NuclearBoy; All I can say is this: You got it all wrong. Yours was a grossly errant interpretation of what I wrote, every one of my points. When I debate, I isolate the point of my opponent I believe to be in error, and discuss it. If that is his keystone, the whole argument collapses. But if I do that with your response, it would take forever, seeing that you got every one of my points wrong. You care nothing about whether I made a point or not. From the goings on, you fly off the handle just because I oppose your position. You go to lengths to discredit me, if you have to go outside the confines of debate ethics. You employ what, in American politics, is called the stickman syndrome. That is making a point an opponent never made and setting forth to attack it. Abstraction may not be brilliance, but sarcasm, misrepresentation, and insult are worse. As I said at the door of this forum, I stumbled into here, and I was impressed. I see that you get your kicks from casting insults and sarcasms at people who don’t tow your line of belief. You have no knowledge of me, and I, you. Rather than disrespect me, I would you show and prove to me what needs to be proved. I came across where you styled yourself a loudmouth. There’s no doubt that you are an institution in Nairaland. But if this’s how you relate to those who don’t agree with you, and given that there could be an awful lot we may not agree on, it’s no skin off my nose disappearing as speedily as I appeared. I have about three sites I own and run, and a number of others I contribute to. At the risk of sounding conceited, I’d like to think I contribute, albeit to an infinitesimal degree, to the growth of any site I have an account with. If you desire to be the only big fish in this pond, you can achieve that without stepping on the toes of other site members. Nonetheless, the stage is all yours. I hope I’m wrong about my perception. On that ominous note, may we shake hands and part ways? That the Lord may guide your path, and protect you and yours is my fervent supplication. Later, dude. |
| Religion / Re: Seyibrown Come And Defend Your Faith. by PrinceEmek: 3:31pm On Aug 23, 2010 |
@ Rhino.3dm: Yes, this is your house, but it is not a police station where guests are brought in, in chains. I’ve seen you say something about fairness. Now tell me, what is fair about inviting someone to a fight, and while you make the rules, you disallowed referees or judges who would make certain the rules are observed, or determine whom the victor is. We can’t just sit there and watch you choose the weapon you have expertise in, and break the rules. If you are going to participate in the duel, you cannot make the rules, and officiate at the same time. But where you insist on making up the rules, there has to be a panel of judges or referees who would examine the rules to make certain they are fair. Your rights as the host end where Seyibrown’s rights as guest begin. You have the right to invite her, and she has the right to accept or decline. You have the right to offer a buffet, but she has the right to choose and pick what she eats or drinks. Unless you want to engage in a boxing match all by yourself, I suggest you let her contribute to the rules, or you appoint a panel to scrutinize your tabled rules. Or would you prefer inviting her to a boxing match, and order her to be blindfolded and have one arm tied behind her back? Now, that is fairness. NuclearBoy chimed in with his opinion, which you were very happy to brush aside. Yes, Seyibrown is a big girl, and resultantly needs no backup. But as far as fairness goes, somebody has to point out the evil of your plan. Now, this is where we are this far. You invited Seyibrown to a duel. She accepted your invitation, and in no uncertain terms, made the condition under which she would honor your invitation, clear: I will answer questions that are genuinely asked for the purposes of enlightenment! Do not expect answers to your questions not to be based on the Bible (the word of God), which my faith is based on! Do not expect other Xtians not to contribute! DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT ANSWERED! And you will also have to find that 'INVENTION OF MAN THAT WAS NOT MADE FROM ANYTHING THAT JEHOVAH CREATED! Following a jockeying for position break, you came out with your rules” Rules [color=#000099][size=10pt][i]Her response was swift and pointed. Words were not minced: And you will also have to find that 'INVENTION OF MAN THAT WAS NOT MADE FROM ANYTHING THAT JEHOVAH CREATED! You will need to write 'I HAVE NOT YET FOUND ANY INVENTION OF MAN THAT WAS NOT MADE FROM ANYTHING THAT JEHOVAH CREATED' at the beginning or end of every question you ask until you find such an invention, in which case you will indicate such invention at the beginning or end of your question! I agree on this term! Without addressing her persistent concern, you fired off your first question: 1.Do you believe in the god of bible? Indicating her willingness to lock horns with you, she humored you with an answer to your question, but still reminded you of your evasion of her concern: Answer 1: I believe in The Almighty Jehovah, who created the heavens and earth and all that is in it! Without as much as bend your ear a fraction of a degree to her objection, you continued with your second question: 2. Do you believe in the bible?Is that not a clear indication that you have no designs of paying a jot of attention to what she has to say? Sensing your less than noble intent, she put her foot down: Please edit or re-post your second question to reflect the' invention of man' terms! I will not answer any more questions that do not abide by the terms agreed! Just copy and paste the declaration or give a true example of such invention!What area of her condition do you not comprehend? Your demeanor extends beyond the perimeter of cordial invitation. If I didn’t know any better, I would swear you desire to drag her in, in chains, and bully her into submission. Then you let loose you thinly clad sinister motive, as you continued to badger and harass her. In her response, she punctuated the whole matter with an exclamation: I will not respond further to this thread until you post by the terms agreed! Thanks! She continued: Let's do English…with the terms as set out! I thought the deadlock was over when you replied: Ok. No wahala.The next thing we know, you back pedal: @seyi. I’m not sure, for the life of me, why she’s still writing, given that you characterized her derogatorily, by calling her a “bi*ch: Rhino.3dm:Very gentlemanly, isn’t it? If you think you have all the answers, why don’t you accommodate her one and only condition, since you have put forth a handful of yours? You are still talking about fairness? |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 3:33am On Aug 23, 2010 |
@ Vescucci; Thanks, bro man, for reco’nizing (ghetto lingo). I wish I could take the credit for my understanding of the scriptures. I had a phenomenal teacher in the person of Herbert Armstrong (diseased) of the defunct Worldwide Church of God. The only way I can explain it is in Our Lord’s own words: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt 11:25). I’ve run into Enigma’s writing a few times. I judge him as astute and meticulous. Yes indeed, he’s zesty. If only I can get him to pay more attention to detail. As a matter of fact, the excerpt NuclearBoy linked, which I dealt with on post #75, was posted by Enigma. Truth is: I’m fresh out of ammunition. Anything that needs to be said on the Trinity has already been said. Anything said beyond this would amount to re-frying stale beans. However, I’m open to questions on this or any other issue, from any and all quarters. So, if you have any, please you are welcome to fire away. Until next, God keep you and yours. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 12:48am On Aug 23, 2010 |
Now, NuclearBoy, this is where I give up. I almost rolled off my stool when I read you say that the Holy Trinity is embedded in the bible. Please show me where the Trinity is expressly nominated in the bible or where it is said that there are three persons in one God, or where there is reference of God the Holy Ghost. I have seen folks make that leap, but you? I’m doubly shocked. I asked you once before: We have the Father. We have the Son. What is the HG, neighbor, wife, brother, servant? If, after running through my response with the proverbial fine-tooth comb, you still hold the Holy Ghost is a separate personage from the Father and The Word, and therefore a distinct member of the Trinity, I can’t do any more. We just have to agree to disagree. This is where I wish you God’s speed and blessing. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 12:38am On Aug 23, 2010 |
NuclearBoy; I beamed over to the linked page. Unfortunately, they belong to a different thread that escaped my notice. I’m glad you pointed me in its direction. I have a thing or two to say. How I wish you would read all herein written before responding. Contrary to the suggestion of your preemptive strike, this is not about intellect or flowery grammar. Let’s just focus on bible truth; for it’s only by the truth can one be set free. It was an interesting read, albeit grossly flawed. While the excerpts may convey your sentiments, they are hardly your words. They are excerpts from someone else’s commentaries, and not as the truth is revealed to you. These commentaries visit havoc on Christ’s doctrine, as they generate confusion. As a bible student, did you investigate, as instructed by Paul, to see if these things were so? Or do you think it’s enough to echo the understanding of another who may not share the same destiny with your? Notice the few incidences of appears, apparently, seems, suggest, probability, etc. Those are telltale signs of uncertainty and wobbly footing, the same tactics employed by evolutionists to dispossess God of his glory. You find terms like probably, must have been, chances are, possibly, could have been, may have been, etc. Jesus thought with authority, and any follower, possessing sound background of Christ’s doctrine, ought to teach with power and authority, as Jesus did. I’m beginning to wonder how many times I’m going to say this. No one is disputing the existence and potency of the Holy Spirit. The primal excerpt and subsequent entries only establish the existence of the HG. That is not the point. Any one desiring to prove that the HG is God should do so, beyond reasonable doubt. Proving that he exists does nothing for the issue at hand. We need proof that the HG is God This Agent is said to speak, warn, reveal, predict, teach, remind, enable, help, witness, testify, encourage, counsel, know, and pray.We don’t dispute these traits. But which one of the enumerated traits makes the HG God? Don’t you find it odd that the most important characteristic in the identification and definition of God is left out? You may be better off defining God, first, and then see what attributes in your definition that does not apply to the HG. Any entity devoid of the creative ability cannot be God. Now, if you want to prove me wrong start from here. But if you agree with me, this, then, is the end of the road. This Agent is apparently invested with active authority over the mission of God--[/b]leading, selecting workers for tasks, selecting workers for positions of authority, dispatching workers, evaluating situations, making decisions about distribution of spiritual gifts, 'steering' and directing.The author uses apparently, meaning the way it seems to him. But considering that “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov 16:25), should we put all our eggs in what seems reasonable to this fellow? Furthermore, what we have here is the job description of a head messenger, prime servant, manager, or supervisor. Considering that he was [b] “apparently invested with active authority over the mission of God,” I don’t see God there, do you? The commonness reinforces the idea that God is one and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God.How, in the world, could any citizen of academia alight at this conclusion? So, besides a million biological traits we share, my dog loves, hates, has a name, and can feel guilt. He also is loyal, friendly, grateful, obedient, protective, dutiful, intelligent, etc. Does that make him Prince Emeka, even if I named him after me? Even though the grammar would predict otherwise, this Agent is referred to by non-neuter personal pronouns in several situations (i.e. 'he').This is where our man should have come in to sort things out. If the grammar and the content don’t agree, he should find out why, and not just throw a dart. The bible cannot contradict itself, and God is not a God of confusion. He ought to have married the seeming opposing views to produce one solid doctrine. The bible is no Literature, and should not be treated as such. One of the 8 keys to understanding scripture is found in Isaiah 28:9-10 “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the bosoms. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little,” In 1 Corinthians 2:9 we read, “‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’ - but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” [1 Corinthians 2:9-11]. Here you see an understanding - a power of knowledge is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Now, if there are any persons here whose minds are of so absurd a character that they would ascribe one attribute to another, and would speak of a mere influence having understanding, then I give up all argument. But I believe every rational person will admit, that when anything is spoken of as having an understanding, it must be an existence - it must, in fact, be a person.Our man here is attempting to interpret the scriptures. That is not his duty. The bible interprets itself. Humans don’t have that wisdom. This guy’s power of deduction is less than glistening, to say the least. After reading and citing scripture that contains this: “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him,” he still goes on to deduce that the spirit and the man are different personages? If the spirit dwells within God, how can he be a separate personage from God? Look who’s taking about what a rational person would admit. Does the referenced line not show that only the spirit dwelling in a man can understand the man’s thoughts? By simple transposition, according to the statement, only the spirit living within God can know the thoughts of God. Is this not what I’ve bee saying all along, that The HG is the spirit attribute of God just as Christ is the human attribute of God? Follow this guy, and you’ll never get to the truth. The foregoing just deals with the first excerpt. The others I did read, and are just a play with words. Of them I’d say the same thing I told you about playing with language very different from ours today. OK, let us suppose briefly that the HG is a distinct personage from The Word, and both of them are God. What would be the rationale of the following scripture? “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2). The HG didn’t call any of the Apostles; Christ did. Can the HG take credit for their vocation? The last I checked it was Our Lord who ambushed him, and roped him in, for a purpose. Factoring in that the bible cannot contradict itself, the only explanation is that both Christ and the HG, as human and spirit respectively, are not God, are both attributes of The Word, who is God. If the human Christ were God, is it possible to imagine the amount of power any one would have to wield, to be able to execute him? God is indestructible; he cannot even kill himself, let alone mere mortal weaklings. It’s therefore important to distinguish Jesus from The Word. The human attribute of The Word was a High Priest and sacrificial lamb, not God. Recall that Jesus never at any time referred to himself as God. He insisted on being the Son of Man. This is important. I’ll explain. This is not the first time The Word visited us in his human form. Melchizedek was King and High Priest. “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the Most High God” (Gen 14:18). But who was he? Check out his heritage. Heb 7 records “ [1] For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; [2] To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; [3] Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (Heb 7:1-3). Pay special attention to verse 3. Who do you know could fill those boots? One guess! Adam sold humanity to the highest bidder, and we needed being bought back. And only by the blood of the blemish-less lamb can that happen. If the human attribute of the Word had materialized out of nowhere, the sacrifice would have been impossible. For starters, he would be immortal, as in the case of Melchizedek. Besides, nobody would be courageous enough to touch him. He had to come through human bloodline, as the Christ. For the sake of simplicity, regard the Word as the CPU, while his various attributes are like the programs. To jump from one program to another, you have to go back to the CPU. None of the programs is a computer, but without the programs, the CPU wouldn’t function as a computer. Hold on to your shorts, it gets crazier. In the middle ages, I would be burned at the stake, or hanged in a public square, for what I’m bout to say. So, if you see me hanging somewhere, just know I died for the truth. Did you know that The Word assisted in the population of this earth, not by creation, but by procreation? We read in the 6th chapter of Gen: “ [1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, [2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. [3] And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Notice what the bible calls these busy bees. Sons of God, that’s what (verse 1). How many sons do you know God to have? He has just the one, right? No, don’t even think it. You are probably thinking Angels, I used to. Oh no, Angels are gender neutral, having no ability to create or procreate. Did you see what The Word called “them rascals?” He called them My Spirit (verse 3), which lives within him. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 4:37am On Aug 22, 2010 |
NuclearBoy; You had me scratching my head there for a bit. I sensed something was off, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it. I thought my comparison of you to Paul was a stellar endorsement. You can understand why your response, coming on the heels of my almost being accused of lacking magnanimity in the face of complements, couldn’t engender any more wonder. Nonetheless, I think it is what it is, just an eyebrow raiser, nothing more. I’m not offended, and so see no cause for such profuse apology. I’ve already formed my opinion of you, and it would take more than a slight hiccough to dislodge my conviction. Just for the record, I’m flabbergasted at your consideration of revisiting my scribble. Coming from you, I can’t contemplate a more gracious honor and approval. nuclearboy:Bowing gleefully as I accept your commendation, with unbridled gratitude, I’m compelled to ask this one question. Do I take it that you still cling to the Trinity doctrine? |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 8:30pm On Aug 21, 2010 |
nuclearboy: The feeling is mutual. Peace, out, my brother. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 5:48pm On Aug 21, 2010 |
NuclearBoy; Ok, I think I’m beginning to feel what Christ felt when the Sadducees and Publicans called him Master, while devising snares to entrap him, lol. You know I’m not vain by any stretch of the imagination. To the best of my knowledge, you made it clear that I won RESPECT, and I presume yours. Incidentally, I saw respect there to mean “earn,” as opposed to securing superiority resultant of a struggle or competition. From my vantage point, there was neither victor nor vanquished. I took your nod as reciprocation to my long-standing and vividly expressed, admiration for your artistry, and possibly superior wealth of diction, in the English language department. For obvious reasons, I failed to see the need to seesaw (teeter-totter) complements in the fashion of two alternately bowing Japanese gentlemen. It’s ad infinitum. Observing Vescucci, standing there with a sign, pointing to the Literature section, I thought it was time to exit. However, if the “hard-won ‘victory’” you made reference of alludes to your capitulation in the Holy Ghost status debate, it didn’t show. I still remember these words of yours to Deep Sight: Please have mercy. This is straightforward - My understanding of God is three manifestations - a Father (Creator Judge), a Son (Creator Bridge) and a Holy Spirit (Creator "friend" - my support system),or this one: Friend, you are in the wrong seeing as you don't have what we have.Seeing there’s no clear evidence of a reversal of these assertions, believing you agree with me would be ultra-presumptuous. I’m a very poor assumer. So, setting aside the reciprocated respect afore explored, wherefore art the hard-won victory? Granted I have been dubbed “Expounder.” But an expounder of what, truth or falsehood, am I? I’m no fan of ambiguity. As a matter of fact, were I certain that you saw my writing as bible truth, I would have given you what I call, the final nail. It would come in handy should you see it fit to argue on my side of the fence. Truth be told, I’ve always seen you as Paul. How many apostles did Jesus bring into his service, in chains, post resurrection? Just Paul. He saw qualities in Paul that were indispensable to the growth of his church. Firstly, Paul was of dual citizenship, a Jew as well as a Gentile (Roman); Perfect vehicle for launching salvation into non-Jewish territory. Secondly, he was a brilliant lawyer; well versed in the law and the prophets (Old Testament). He would not only talk and reason his way out of any troubles, but also had the ability to blow away any opponents by oratory. And Paul delivered. In like vein, you will not be bashful in obliterating any stumbling block in your path, in the defense of the faith. I see God employing your talents in unimaginable ways. Chances are this is not going to be the last time we both will go head to head. When that time comes, all I ask is for us to come loaded with open mind. New doctrine and old beliefs are a volatile combination. I guess the fat lady is yet to sing. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 4:31am On Aug 21, 2010 |
Deep Sight:Deep Sight, thanx for noticing. vescucci:Lol, I hear you, loud and clear, bro man, Vescucci. nuclearboy:NuclearBoy, courtesy of yours truly, yours will be the last word on the matter, |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 1:34pm On Aug 19, 2010 |
NuclearBoy; nuclearboy:A few entries ago, Deep Sight said you were a riot. Believing that he didn’t see you as a wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people, or a violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose, I’m compelled to go for door number 3, an irresistibly funny person. In that case, he has my vote. And don’t ask if I went through all that just to say you are funny. That’s the beauty of the language. I thank Almighty you are in permanent employ. I’d have advised you against seeking a career in singing, lol. I don’t know what it was I won. I only win when, as a watchman, I’m able to sound my alarm for those who “hath ears to hear.” nuclearboy:Just view it from the vantage point of an older brother, desiring to preserve and or improve that which is good. You have a talent the world should romance and ogle with passion. We wouldn’t want your language artistry to be distracted from, would we? As for my “vocab,” I don’t know about that. I don’t believe it’s the vocabulary. I’d bet my bottom dollar that your diction vault is way richer than mine. It’s not how much you have, but what you do with the much you have. The vocabulary I muster is that of everyday use, and can be found in any primary school dictionary. But much like you, I just find uncommon ways of handling common expressions. That’s what inserts bookends between writers. nuclearboy:Well, it depends on who my audience is, being that I see myself as a performer. When I write for the benefit is the elite, present company not excluded, I bring my “A” game. But for the not so endowed, I make it crisp but comprehendible. I'd say this though. I do know my way around my native tongue, Igbo, and I’ve been know to belch out a line or two of broken English. Do those count? I wouldn’t say there’s cause to bolt from NL. To the degree this thread is handled, in the wise of language, beginning from the original thread, I’d say people might begin to take notice if it’s kept up. Success is infectious, you know. Look around you. Doesn’t the English grammar appear to be a dying art? The heretofore language of the elite, has turned into “anything goes.” I don’t know about you, but this is my thinking: Maybe, just maybe, we could stir up some nostalgia in the older generation and they may wander back to the way it was. For the younger generation, if we are lucky, we may provide them with something to emulate. By the way, as I have said time and again, I wouldn’t go that far. I would neither cite nor indict you for insolence. But if you still perceive so as my evaluation of you, I have no other refuge than to extend my unqualified apologies. You wear the shoe, and it’s not my intent, but your feeling, that ought to prevail. You enjoy yours too, brother of Expounder. |
| Religion / Re: Which Is Right Bible Or Science by PrinceEmek: 1:54am On Aug 19, 2010 |
Ajoguegbe; Please accept my sincerest apologies for my tardiness in responding to your post. It was not designed to be a slight on you, but was necessitated by my occupation on another thread, where time was heavily taxed. Again, my apologies are rendered. ajoguegbe:Thank you, my brother, for your kind words. I do my part in giving as freely as I have gotten. I sense your concern about my statement that: Besides, it’s not in God’s plan to have everybody saved during this dispensation.Not to worry, it’s nothing that cannot be addressed with a turn or two of the screwdriver. I’ll get to it as soon as I dust off a few things. ajoguegbe:It is exactly as you have said. But it’s easy to isolate those who seek knowledge of the truth from those who seek to mock God and dispossess him. Concerning the former, you have my blessing and gratitude. But for the later, I have but one advice: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet” (Matt 10:14). ajoguegbe:I’m flattered by your accolade. However, I wish I could say I wrote to bring the word to all. My sensing your belief in the word as pure and of God’s prompted my writing. Praise be to the Father of our Lord that, as one of the few laborers in the vineyard of plenteous harvest, you are edified by my words. To those who have no respect for he that was, is, and ever shall be, I present my testimony as a stumbling block at their feet. Now, to my vexing comment we go. Be prepared to do some heavy reading. Indeed, I stand by the testimony that the Lord has no design for all to be saved at this dispensation. I’m not saying that all not saved now will be forever lost. No. They too will have an opportunity to taste salvation. It’s true, as you point out, that God does not wish for any to perish (2 Peter 3:9), and the other scriptures you present are right on the money; you’ll not get an argument from me there. But most unfortunately, on account of our stiff-necks, God’s desire is a different matter from its accomplishment. The Lord knows the future and acknowledges that not every one of his lambs will make it across the bridge. Why else would he ignite the unquenchable fires of hell? But whether some will perish is not the issue here. I’m sure you already know that there will be casualties despite God’s best efforts. My position is: Even those who make it are not destined to cross the finish line at the same time. There is an array of scriptures to buttress my point. So, grab your popcorn, kick back, and enjoy the show. Now, the grand scheme of things presents two resurrections, one for the King of Kings, the second for the general public. The general resurrection is further divided into two, the first and the second resurrections. While the first resurrection is reserved for the Elect, who will rule with King Christ in his kingdom, the second resurrection is for the citizens or subjects of the kingdom. Between the first and the second resurrections, exists a period of 1000 years when the Devil will be locked away in the bottomless pit. This means that while the Elect had the Devil to contend with and overcome, the mass population of the kingdom will not. The rest of the unsaved, still alive, will have 1000 years of life without Satan. Anyone saved during this period will be counted as the general citizenry of the Kingdom, while those still refusing to come to Christ will be condemned to eternal destruction. As for the Saints or the Elect who wrestled with the Devil, as we have been, theirs is to rule with Christ as kings and priests. This is but a summary of the grand picture. Don’t panic, there are scriptures to support what I have to say. Before we get to the low down, consider this. We know that the bible is the pure and true word of God, that God’s word is irreversible, and that the bible cannot contradict itself. Armed with those constants, let’s venture further. God has secrets sealed from the wise of this world, while he reveals them to whomsoever he chooses. “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt 11:25). “All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” (Matt 13:34-35). “But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given” (Matt 19:11). Aren’t you beginning to seen the pattern of picking the few from the many? I know I am. I’m certain you do remember the famous “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day?” (John 6:44) Obviously, the Father hasn’t sent every one of us. Even the Lord was pissed off when some unwanted Jews come to be baptized: “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matt 3:7) Jesus couldn’t be accused of discrimination. After all, he broke the barrier so that salvation could be extended to the Gentiles. But this selective tendency was also evident in the recruitment of his apostles and disciples: “And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead” (Matt 8:19-22). As can be seen, he just rejected an applicant, while he wouldn’t let another go. One should be raising one’s eyebrows by now; don’t you think so? I guess the question now is: If God wanted everyone to be saved now, why would he hide his secrets for some and reveal them to others? Why would he force some people to come with him, and then send others who desire to follow him, packing? It’s obvious that, as much as he desires that none should perish, salvation if open to just a few, at this time. This few, who have been tried and tested by fire, as he was, are the Elect who will rule with him, as kings and priests, in his kingdom. So, right now, until his coming, he is engaged with gathering and training the Elect. THE ORDER OF OUR SALVATION 1. Our King Comes To Life Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we? I believe the order of resurrection may clear things up a bit. You already know of the Primal resurrection of our High Priest so he could go to his father for his reward for his victory over the devil and to prepare his kingdom for the faithful: “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming (1Cor 15:20-23). After the resurrection of Christ, there will be an order or schedule of resurrection for the rest of us. It won’t be a one-time event, as we shall see. 2. The 1st Resurrection While the Lord prepares his government, it’s only prudent that he appoints those with whom he will administer his Kingdom, at his coming. He began this exercise with the Twelve, and then the 120 disciples. This group of anointed he called the Elect, but they called themselves the Saints. He is still recruiting these executives as we speak. To be in this group, one has to overcome, just as our Lord did. This is the group that will meet the King in the clouds at the end of this system. Rev 5:10 tells us, in no uncertain terms, the destiny of the Elect: “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” As I said before, the first resurrection is designed for these potential kings and priests of our King, hence the title, King of kings. This is the resurrection that Peter wrote of: “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1Peter 4:17) The same resurrection was written of by Paul: “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1Cor 15:51-52). “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1Thes 4:16-17). “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt 24:29-31). “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40). All the foregoing prophecies point to the same resurrection. At this time, the dead saints, and no body else, will rise first, followed by the instantaneous transformation of the living Saints. All this will be heralded in by the last of the seven trumpets at the taking over of world government by our King. These prophecies are authenticated by the prophecy of Rev 11:15, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” 3. The Millennium; Satan’s Imprisonment Our King has taken over world government, then what? How about the god of this world that deceived many? One of his first orders of duty is to deal with his archenemy, Satan, who, mind you, is still immortal, and alive and well. Rev 20: [1] And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. [2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, [3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. Notice that, even with Christ solidly planted on his Kingship; the Devil will not have been cast into the lake of fire yet. He will only be temporarily incarcerated, to be released at the end of his thousand-year sentence. You will have guessed that at his release, he’s not going away quietly. The following verses will further identify Christ’s ruling council, the Elect: [4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Those who were martyred, persecuted, or otherwise stood up to Satan are seen to take their place as judges over humanity. Observe that all we have in the kingdom at this point are too many chiefs, but no Indians. Where is the citizenry? Where are the commoners? Whom are they going to reign over? [5] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [6] Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Do you see that? The rest of the dead who were unsaved remained dead for the duration of 1000years, not eternal, but a millennium. And they will not have been cast into the lake of fire yet. So, all hope is not lost, not yet. Take special notice what the resurrection of the Saints is called. The first resurrection, implying that another, a second, is to come. Keep in mind that while the dead Saints will be resurrected into immortality, their living counterparts will be transformed into undefiled existence, as cited earlier on. We also have seen that the unsaved dead will remain dead. But, what about the still living unsaved individuals? There’s no hell yet to quarter them in yet. They will still live on. Even though the 1st resurrection will have occurred, judgment is still to come. During this period of Satan’s 1000-yr incarceration, the unsaved, still living, will have their chance to salvation. Those who grab the salvation boat at his time will be counted in the book of life. But they will not be in the executive council. They will be neither priests nor kings, but the subjects, being that they did not overcome the Devil, as Christ and the Elect did. At the end of Satan’s sentence, he will be freed, only to go on a rampage again, to deceive and destroy. He will assemble a huge army to mount a military offensive, aimed at taking back his world. This is the battle of Armageddon. But this time, the King will be fed up with him and his entourage, and will ignite the lake with fire from above to incinerate them all. This time, it won’t be prison term. It would be a death sentence, by public execution. Revelation continues: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev 20:7-10). 4. The 2nd Resurrection and the White Throne Judgment Following the defeat and good riddance of Satan, there is still this little matter of determining the fate of those who neither repented nor converted, whether they be those who remained dead, or those who backslid and were deceived after the release of Satan. Those unsaved who remained dead will now resurrect to join their living counterpart in judgment. Revelation 20 details: [11] And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. [12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [13] And the sea gave up the dead, which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead, which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. As you can see, not much is made of the 2nd resurrection at the present because the recruitment of the Elect is ongoing. This explains Christ’s selective method of the appointment of his Saints, his deliberate hiding of his truth from the wise of the world, and the confusion he meted out to his adversaries with parables. While successful candidates will take part in the 1st resurrection, unsuccessful ones will have their chance during Satan’s imprisonment. The 2nd resurrection is only into damnation. Please observe this distinction. The Saints will not face judgment. They will only be rewarded according as their work shall be, while the condemned shall be judged according as their work shall be. I told you it was going to be a long reading. I hope you can glean some clarity from all this. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 2:29pm On Aug 17, 2010 |
vescucci: Lol @ Vescucci. Don’t let the profession or title fool you. I assure you, there are lawyers you could take to the woodshed and administer the paddle on their hind parts, in the courtroom. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 6:11am On Aug 17, 2010 |
@ NuclearBoy nuclearboy:Do you then marvel at my admiration of your command of the English language? Nonetheless, I wouldn’t go as far as you in the wise of interpretation. To let out a little air off your ego, maybe, just maybe. "Prideful arrogance" is a harsh term. I try not to insult, as I’m not notable for absorbing such. nuclearboy:I have no need to look to a third part for proof or validation of you humorous disposition. Your writing tells the whole story. All I wanna do is nudge you in the direction of easing off on your adversaries. The implication that one disagreeing with you lacks understanding, or is unintelligent can be a turn-off. One desiring to chime in on the discussion may be discouraged from doing so. I’m well aware that, over time, the noble gentlemen of NL may have advanced a culture. But in my humble opinion, given that this is a public domain, the culture that should prevail is the posting rules. We, the members, don’t always know each other. The forum is our only medium of interaction. We can only relate to one another by what we write and read. You do appreciate the fact that not very one of your readers is as understanding or tolerant as DeepSight. nuclearboy:Don’t I know it? Sure, he can take care of his business. But determining that the odds were against him numerically, I sought to level out the playing field. I wouldn’t have made a thing of it if you hadn’t dared me to show you. nuclearboy:I totally agree with you. To each his own sums it all up. But be careful not to give the impression: “it’s your way or no way at all.” It’s most important that you know where your expression freedom ends, and where your opponent’s right not to be talked down on begins. I’d love nothing more than to meet you one day, shake your hand, point to you, and tell my fellows: there goes a philosopher of relevance, a formidable opponent, and a language maestro whom even the English words do obey. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 10:17pm On Aug 16, 2010 |
NuclearBoy; Please, I’d counsel that you read the totality of my writing, before responding, should you choose to. This way we may save us having to go back and forth on the same issue, argument, or evidence. And if you are gonna throw scriptures at me, please find in you to address mine first, and then you can demolish me with yours. nuclearboy:My reference to your victory parade was not designed from or for the literal angle. Idiomatically expressed, my banter was fashioned to mildly needle your implied superlative scriptural understanding, which your anemic modesty lets seep through. This takes into account the totality of your utterances from the first thread on the topic. It was not intended to offend or indict any direct statement of yours. However, since you insist on “show me,” I’ll oblige you. nuclearboy: nuclearboy: nuclearboy: nuclearboy: nuclearboy:If these don’t shout, DeepSight, I’ve got you cornered; you have nowhere to run,” I don’t know what does. There are lots more. But I trust you get the point. nuclearboy:Are we to understand that a priest is not qualified to marriage counsel, for lack of experience? Experience alone cannot qualify one to judge, given that experience can also fuel bias. In my opinion, the debate is about our understanding and analysis of an already written material, not about participants’ religion or faith. It, therefore, seems to me that any one who has access to the same information, and has read same, is free to throw his hat in the ring. The last I checked, there were no restrictions placed on the thread, thus bringing under the microscope your competency in determining who does or doesn’t qualify. And where does your “lawyering” analogy fit in? DeepSight’s assertions are based on bible application. I see no generalization or stereotyping there, as your example seems to insinuate. nuclearboy:There you go again. You still don’t think you slap your chest? I don’t even wanna touch that one. It reminds me of the Pharisee’s pompous praying ethics of Luke 18:10-13. nuclearboy:Your deduction is erroneous. I have never disputed the existence or potency of the HG. Please, show me, to borrow your lingo. My position (and to the best of my knowledge, DeepSight’s) is: The HG is not an individual personality, numbering among the population of heaven before creation of everything else. Furthermore, I’ve not said a thing regarding my thoughts of your mental capabilities. I wouldn’t waste my time debating with you if I thought that less of your intelligence. Get a handle on this. Who says that my accolade of your command of the English Language and not agreeing with you on intellectual or scriptural matters are mutually exclusive? That I praise you does not preclude me from standing in opposition to your views. nuclearboy:You’ve made a whole lot about your personal encounter, presumably with the HG. Tell, please do tell, I pray, of these encounters you talk about? Your contemporaries who make such claims relate of warm fuzzy feeling, trance, and the like, which more often than not, prelude the speaking in tongues. Your encounter peaks my curiosity, and has to be revealed if it is to be entered as your evidence. We have to have the opportunity to examine your claim, in the light of bible teaching. nuclearboy:Firstly, the reason we have this avalanche of confusion is the activities of those who dub themselves experts and churn out commentaries. There are many of them, fueling the reign of deception as foretold by our Lord. Secondly, while majority may carry the vote, it is not always right. After all, “…wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt 7:13-14). You imply that DeepSight made a far-reaching conclusion based on just the one factor. I’d say you are the one guilty of such. The only evidence offered to prop up your position is the animation of the HG. You raised the issue of the HG being referred to in the 3rd person singular pronoun. I gave you examples of inanimate objects enjoying such treatment. Now, you bring in the invocation of the HG’s name, in certain human activities. Is that enough to make him a person in the trinity? I think not. Would you believe that it is a normal occurrence that names of inanimate entities are invoked as though they were animate? “By the power vested in me by the state of so and so,” “In the name of the law,” “In the name of the crown,” In the name of my country,” “In the name of the throne,” or “In the name of decency” are just a few examples of the application of terms to give life to inanimate objects. nuclearboy:No, he did not. While DS is a personage, he is miles from being a spirit. We contend that the HG is not a personage, but God’s active force, an attribute or characteristic of His that gives him control of creation and the administration of his government over his creations. On a minor scale, the HG is to the deity as executive power is to the president. The president can make his influence felt throughout the nation, by virtue of his executive power. nuclearboy:I possess no personal knowledge of what DS thinks of it, but I would say it’s a brilliant, almost comic, play with words. But this is serious matter, not “Saturday Nite At The Improv.” It is akin to the fireworks of 4th of July. They go up with a bang, flare out, display an array of exquisite colors, and then go out. In seconds, it’s all gone, as if nothing was ever there. Meanwhile, you lost sight of the fact that the words you play with have run the gauntlet, in the wise of translation. Originally written in Hebrew and Greek, the bible’s very first English version was translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English. We are talking about language practically different from what we have today. Then came the Middle English versions, and later, the contemporary versions. There are some translations, which, in an attempt to make the bible more understandable, miss the mark. That, my friend, is the nutshell background of the language you play with. nuclearboy:I could say the same of your response. How can you respond to my post without addressing some of the issues I raised? Rather than hazard a repetition, I’d refer you to page one of this thread. It’s impossible to discuss the HG, while those issues are ignored. For all intent and purposes, the hereunder appearing excerpt is the bedrock of your argument, isn’t it? nuclearboy:What, if you were the one who got John 14:17 wrong? Lets explore it for a bit. This surfaced in the midst of Jesus preparing his apostles for his temporary leave of absence. Reading the entire chapter reveals that at the core of this lecture were just two entities, the Father and his son. No third person; no HG. Knowing they would be troubled, Jesus promised a comforter. But who was this comforter to be expected? The very next verse reveals who was to come. “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” There you have it. Then the question becomes: if he were the one to come, why would he leave in the first place, why wouldn’t he have stayed and comforted the apostles? The answer is simple. He had to go get his reward for his conquest of the Devil, and his next appearance would see him on his throne. Even though he can’t come again till his (the Lord’s) day, he has to exert influence on his baby church. When the word, AKA Jesus, made us in his image, he copied one of the many attributes of himself that made him God. He copied his human attribute. There are other attributes, such as the creator, spirit, almighty, and all-knowing attributes. The sum total of all attributes makes him God. It was his Spirit attribute that makes him omnipresent. As human, he was not everywhere, but as God, sporting his spirit essence, that was a piece of cake. He could not activate his spirit attribute while a human. He had to go up to the Father, to do that. In his human form, he couldn’t create, but he could multiply or modify. As the creator, he didn’t need a coin, fish, bread, or water, to do his stuff. All he had to say was: “Let there be this.” And it would be so. But because he had only his human traits and attributes, he could only work miracles, which, by the way, he said we too could do if we prayed, fasted, and had faith. This explains why he could summon Moses and Elias, but not his Spirit, because the first two were not part of him. If the HG were a different entity, he would have summoned him while he was yet here. Instead, he instructed his apostles to go into hiding until he is back again, projecting his Spirit attribute, as the comforter. But of course he couldn’t do a thing without the authorization of the Father. The Father has to authorize the spirit attribute of the Word to visit his church. So, Jesus’ dwelling in us has to be by way of his Spirit attribute, and no other attribute. Chew on this for a bit. We know that creation is one of God’s attributes. We also know that The Father created or begot the Word. So, if the HG were God, he should be able to create or beget, right? Now, hear the Word give us a front seat view of his heritage: Psalm 8: [22] The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. [23] I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. [24] When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. [25] Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: [26] While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. [27] When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: [28] When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: [29] When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: [30] Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; [31] Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. [32] Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. [33] Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. [34] Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. [35] For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. [36] But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Now, we know that the Father gave life to, or created the Word. We also know that, by the authority of the Father, the Word created everything else (John 1:1-3). So, as a separate personage, and as God, just whom did the HG create or give life to? We see the Father and the son. What was the HG, Jesus’ younger brother, his cousin, the house help, a messenger, or what? The Father and the Word had the host of Angels to do their chores. If he were a distinct personage, the HG was not counted among the God family. There is no record of the Father creating him. Did the Word create him? What makes him God and thus a third of the divine family? Jesus assured us that whatever we asked the Father in his name, believing, it shall be done unto us. So. Where does the HG figure in, as God? When our request is approved, it would be “Holy Ghost-ed” (as in Fedexed) to us. He is just one of the several God’s attributes. |
| Religion / Re: Which Is Right Bible Or Science by PrinceEmek: 8:05am On Aug 13, 2010 |
ajoguegbe:Ajoguegbe; I read your linked blog with keen interest. I must say that the enormous amount of time and energy expended in your exploration can be said to be nothing but impressive. It’s my hope that your painstaking efforts were for personal spiritual enrichment and edification. Otherwise, I couldn’t, for the life of me, put my finger on why such undertaking. If you did this for the benefit of others, to convince others that God is the architect of all creation, I’m not certain that your work was not for naught, after all. You can’t be addressing an Atheist who, like the fool that he is, already doesn’t believe in the existence of God: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good” (Psalm 14:1). He’s too far gone, and would require a near-death experience to turn around. He cites Science every inch of the way, as the source of his unbelief. But before hand, Science has already been identified as unreliable in the matters of God. “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen” (1Tim 6:20-21). Do you seek to bring a quasi Christian to reason? Any Christian who is not sure footed enough to the point of thinking that what he sees in the mirror is a result of an accident, a random explosion, is not worth your time. To make a cup of tea takes some planning, and doing. A cup of tea can’t just happen. From planting the herb, caring, harvesting, preparing, and brewing, there has to be some thought and action. If that much goes into making a cup of tea, how much do you consider went into the making of me? We are left with just the one group, the true believer. It definitely cannot be for his benefit, as it would be tantamount to the proverbial preaching to the choir. A true believer already is assured that every word of God is pure. He does not need convincing. We don’t even have to go very far to find Science hang itself, as it breaks all its own rules, struggling to explain the unexplainable. Living things cannot come forth from non-living things, is the very first law of science. The first big band theory had the sun explode and fragments flew apart and cooled down at different distances form the bang, resulting in the many planets. Even though the new generation big bang is said neither to be a band nor big, I enjoy seeing them squirm, as they try to explain the origin of life from a heretofore non-living mass. Then watch them parade an array of terms such as, probably, must have, chances are, could have, possibly, etc. Nothing definite, yet they call it fact. Isn’t that a no-no in the world of Science? Then, they turn around and require of us to prove that there is God. The bible tells us that life on earth has been around for about 6,000 years. If you asked me, that is enough time for at least one lizard to swallow its legs and turn into a snake. Don’t you think it's enough time for at least one captive ape to shed its furs and morph into a human? Do we have any record of any man who had no biological parents, or was a monkey in the past, a few years earlier? Before you have time to let out a snicker, they say a fossil find of human remains had been around for billions of years. To that I say, hogwash. If Satan has the power to pick up the creator of everything in existence and transport him from the ground to the temple pinnacle, to the mountaintop, what is making any test produce any desired result, to him, as long as it is to his glory and would dispossess God? So, my brother, I wouldn’t lose any sleep, trying to convince another human of the creative talent of God. For Jesus to anchor some of teachings with, “He who hath an ear, let him hear,” he knew that many would not hearken. Jesus commissioned his apostles to: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt 28:19-20). I don’t believe having to prove his existence, deity, or proprietorship was in that curriculum. Besides, it’s not in God’s plan to have everybody saved during this dispensation. He’s recruiting and training the Elect, with whom he will rule the earth, as Kings and priests, in the world tomorrow. Any one who is not saved now, will have a second chance at the second judgment. Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44). So, come time for any one to believe, God would know what to do. |
| Religion / Re: Ok. Deep Sight, Am Listening You. Tell Me About Holy Spirit. by PrinceEmek: 3:14am On Aug 13, 2010 |
I stumbled onto this thread and I must say that I’m exceedingly impressed by the quality of the English language you guys marshaled in the establishment of your varied opinions. Chiefest is NuclearBoy whose command and manipulation of the language leaves me basking in pure pride. NB, I salute you. Now, to the issue at hand. In my honest opinion, nobody could have set the status of the Holy Spirit clearer, more precisely, and more accurately than DeepSight, who did great service to his name. NuclearBoy, irrespective of my respect and admiration for your mastery of the English language, the nature of the Holy Spirit is where we part company. Please allow me to express my measurable disappointment that you employed the incidence of the third person singular pronoun, HE, to anchor your belief that the Holy Spirit is an individual sentient entity as distinguishable from the Father and the Son, of the God family. Amusingly, your striking your chest, signifying that you had DeepSight on the ropes, could not go unnoticed. I just hope that my stepping in, at the knick of time, helps mitigate your exuberant victory lap. You are aware of the many instances where personal pronouns have been used in the stead of inanimate objects. Nations have been referred to as she. And so have vehicles such as ships or airplanes. I’m sure you are not suggesting that the referenced object should be considered animate, sentient beings. Well, we may chuck that as human coinage, but what does the bible have to say? The Catholics hold that the Holy Ghost is a third and equal component of the Godhead, and considers it as God, hence God the Holy Ghost. This erroneously gave birth to the Trinity doctrine. If the Holy Ghost were God, distinguishable from the Father and the Son, when did it come into existence? It couldn’t be from the beginning, as with the other deities. John gave the earliest account of time, and he writes: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men (John 1:1-4). The self-explanatory excerpt points to the fact that two entities, one of which was named the Word, existed before anything else was created. The only way the HS could have existed from the beginning would have to be as an integral part, characteristic, and instrument of the creating God. It also happened that the Word created every single thing that was created. So, where do you see the HG in all this? It is this active force by the means of which the Creator, namely the Word, who later became Christ, creates, controls, and influences all his creation. Before the advent of Christianity, it was called the spirit of the Lord, or the spirit of God. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen 1:1-2). As an aside, may I remind you that the Father never interacted with humans, at any time? It was the Word all the way. As you can see, the spirit of God was active, but was not enumerated as a member of the God family. God is a family of two, not three. Observe that Jesus could not do a thing for his men while he was yet with us. “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them” (Matt 28:16). His restricted ability persisted even after he was resurrected. He promised he would send the HS after his ascension, not before. So, Jesus instructed his disciples to stay put, in hiding, until the advent of the HG/HS. Acts 1:4 records: “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. Verse 8 continues: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Why? As man, he could not activate that characteristic, or instrument of his we call the HS/HG. It’s like any promise by a high profile inmate to the other prisoners. It would have to wait until the high profile inmate gets back into circulation. He could not activate his influence while in chains. As I intimated earlier, it’s not unusual for inanimate objects to be referred to in the third person pronoun. God, the creator himself said this: “The tabernacle of the congregation, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is thereupon, and all the furniture of the tabernacle, And the table and his furniture, and the pure candlestick with all his furniture, and the altar of incense, And the altar of burnt offering with all his furniture, and the laver and his foot, And the cloths of service, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest's office, And the anointing oil, and sweet incense for the holy place: according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do” (Exd 31:7-11). |
| Religion / Re: Which Is Right Bible Or Science by PrinceEmek: 7:21am On Aug 10, 2010 |
Elmos; There is a lot to be said about solid foundation. There is an old saying: “If a man starts out in the wrong direction, he never gets to his destination, no matter how long or far he walks. It so happens that you just started out with a statement that is biblically inaccurate. Nowhere is it stated, implied, or inferred in the bible that the world is about 8,000 years old. Man, vegetation, and other life forms may have been around for about 6,000 years, but the bible does not put a value as to the age of the earth, waters, world, universe, or firmament. Considering that a thousand years of man is but a day to God, it’s not outside the perimeter of his ability to have created the earth billions of years before the creation of man. “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” [2Peter 3:8]. Therefore, Science may well be right in this respect. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 3:29pm On Aug 09, 2010 |
kannymoore: @ Kannymoore: You directed your question to me. That’s progress. We’re getting somewhere. Now, let’s get down to business. Observe that I didn’t address your question, and its attendant examples. The statement you laid out is not attributable to me. Nowhere did I say God does not work through cripples. How can I discuss or debate things of such critical importance, if that is your tactic, pinning on me things I didn’t say? I even requested that you provide proof that pins me to the “crime.” But you chose to ignore that. As you can see, your two examples didn’t register with me, as the statement they purport to support was not made by me, and you’ve refused to establish otherwise. Don’t forget that we are talking about priests, priesthood, and physical requirements. Which one of your examples did God call onto the priesthood? I hope you understand what I’m driving at. In the even that you have the slightest care about what I actually said, I’ll freshen your memory: What I have to write next may appear insensitive but it is the bible truth. Remember from the pages of the bible that God is not a God of confusion. Once any words have come out of his mouth, they are never rescinded. He is the God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There is no need citing these facts. In the light of that, why would God require Pastor Obadare’s services? Observe carefully, if you will, that I didn’t set those guidelines. God did. If you have any problems with that, take it up with him. You may do well to know that the foregoing injunction is not restricted to the descendants of Aaron, who was of the house of Levi, a priestly household. Back then, only they were priests. It continues till today, as far as priesthood goes. Being called to be a go between, to convey our prayers and sacrifices to God, or to pass on favor from God to us, requires special designation. A priest of any era or time automatically becomes a citizen of the household of Aaron, and so, subject to God’s priesthood physical qualification. You admitted that you are “not so versed in the scriptures.” Shouldn’t you be asking questions that indicate that you are desirous to seek out and learn the truth? The question you asked can only be classified as “gatcha” question. It only seeks to snare and entrap. As for my passing judgment on you, I would apologize if I were guilty of the charge. If someone alerts you to the dangers that lurk ahead, do you consider him as passing judgment on you? Let’s be specific. A stranger, you don’t know, tells to be careful crossing that river. It has strong, deep undercurrent that could sweep you away, or even drown you, would you not thank the one, even if you intended to go ahead anyway? Would you be angry with him for his efforts? Some people who may have some knowledge of the scriptures may arrogate to themselves the position of a minister, pastor, apostle, bishop, pope, or even prophet. I’m none of those. I’m just a watchman. My job is to sound the trumpet to alert folks of impending danger. I can be laughed at, jeered, or booed. It’s no skin off my nose, so long as I perform my job to the delight of the Lord. If you are curious about the commission of a watchman, see the 33rd chapter of Ezekiel. While you are at it, pull out your dictionary and explore the definitions of wrestle and fight. It you created the universe, or authored the bible, I would give extreme consideration to the way you “see it.” But until such a time as you are capable of pulling off such astronomical feat, I’ll stick with worrying about the way God sees it. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 7:00am On Aug 09, 2010 |
manmustwac:Manmustwac; Yours is a very serious question every Christian should be concerned about. This is one time when the proof of the pudding is not in the eating. The proof of the authenticity of the false teachers is not in whether the healers perform the promised miracle. This is what the maker of humanity said: “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matt 24:24). That is how good these fellows are. And neither is the proof in their loyalty to God dependent on their claims of messengers of God, or their quotation of the scriptures, or even preaching the name of Christ. “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them” [Luke 21:8]. Right there. Do you see it? Those imposters would even preach that Jesus is the Christ. So, if you are an elect, count yourself lucky. You can’t be deceived, said the Lord. But if you are not, there is reason for concern. I believe Sister Seyibrown gave you a good and useful pointer. INVESTIGATE FOR YOURSELF. DON'T LET OTHER PEOPLE TELL LIE TO YOU THAT IT IS TRUE OR NOT TRUE!she wrote. But the problem is, how? How do we investigate? If one is but a babe in the word, how does one go about investigating the people Christ said are really good in the art of deceiving? It’s like asking a baby that is still sucking at the bosom to go prepare his own meal. You have to be taught the rudiments and art of investigation. If you are still desirous of knowing how to distinguish the true servants of God from the false prophets, just say so, and I’ll post something I prepared to that effect. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 5:09am On Aug 09, 2010 |
kannymoore:Kannymoore; By the number of posts you’ve put out, I believe you are experienced enough to identify the individual to whose post you are referring. Alternatively, you may quote the lines you are making reference to. Regarding your questions, it is difficult to be held accountable for statements I didn’t make. I deny making the statement you ascribe to me. I’d appreciate a direct quote of any line, attributable to me, that says: “God doesn’t work thru cripples.” In lieu of that, please read my statements very carefully before firing away any questions. Thanks a bunch. And by the way, do you customarily manipulate bible words to suit your purpose? Jacob did not fight with the angel. He wrestled with him. And do you see one injured in an activity as a cripple? Such a one cannot be termed a cripple unless the sustained injury cannot be healed, making it permanent. Please, be very careful how you employ the scriptures. Twisting and manipulating God’s words do not put a smile on His face. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov 30:5-6). See also Eccl 3:14. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 8:26am On Aug 08, 2010 |
Seyibrown; You wrote: You will find that blemished priests are still not allowed in Judaism. Pastor Obadare is not a Jew and was not chosen as a priest in that order. Given your opinion on this disqualification, what is your opinion on circumcision as was commanded Abraham and his descendants? Any Minister of God not circumcised is not consecrated to God?You keep bringing up Obodare’s priesthood. Something tells me that you don’t even read my post. If you did, you would read this: Whether a priest is of the line of Aaron and Levi, or whether the priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, as Jesus was and still is, does not change the rules. A priest must not have physical impairment, period. You, yourself, stated that God’s words are irrevocable. I know you are not saying that God didn’t order these physical requirements. If we both agree that those were God’s words, how can he change them, if he said he wouldn’t rescind his words? He is either a liar, or he is not. You tell me.God set the guidelines for choosing his priests, and he said he would never rescind his orders. That should be clear. This is not about lineage or heritage. It’s about the office. For example, let’s say there is some ordinance regarding the conduct of a king. Once one is made a king, one is expected to abide by those rules, irrespective of the fact that he may have been a pauper, or royalty. His lineage or prior position does not change anything. Same thing goes for the game of football. The league established the rules of the game and the conduct of players. Once you are signed up as a member of a team, you must abide by the rules. It would not matter if you were drafted, traded, picked up from the streets, or promoted from the position of a water boy. Once you become a member of a team, you play and act according to the dictates of the league. You will put on approved uniform, and obey the referees etc. If you don’t, you get axed, period. Same thing goes for priesthood. It doesn’t matter through which priesthood one is called under, Melchizedek, Aaron, Levi, or of gentile extraction. Jesus himself had no physical deformity. Does Jesus not lead and teach by example? How many of Jesus’ apostles and disciples, 120 total, do you know had physical impairment? Not a one. If he had scrapped the regulation he put in place thousands of years before, wouldn’t he have demonstrated it by selecting a cripple or a hunchback as one of his apostles? In the words of President Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” Once again, you pull scripture that has no connection with the issue at hand. Yes I remember Peter’s vision, but it has nothing to do with the physical qualification of priests. I’ve seen people use it to justify eating unclean food, now you use it to strike down God’s priesthood requirement? For starters, the vision was not a commandment; it was an illustration. Jesus used it to prepare Peter for a mission ahead. Secondly, the issue at hand was not food or diet. Thirdly, Peter’s instruction was to facilitate the conversion of Cornelius, not to ordain him. Cornelius was a just and righteous man, but he did not know Jesus. He was to be taught about Christ and be baptized, not made a minister. God does not wish any soul to be lost, but that doesn’t mean that every believer should be a priest. If you read to the end of the chapter you’ll find that he was not yet a Christian. It was Peter’s mission to make him one. By contrast, Paul’s conversion and priesthood happened at the same time. He was not a cripple either. So, conversion has nothing to do with ordination, or consecration. That makes the hereunder statement, which you made, biblically inaccurate. Please consider what Peter was being told in that vision to your theory about blemishes disqualifying a follower of Christ from being a minister.Cornelius was not a follower of Christ, and neither was he minister, in a priestly capacity. Should God have required his services as a priest, be assured he would have to satisfy the physical requirements, first. One thing is for sure: God does not have two sets of commandments, one for the Jews and another for the gentiles. Remember: one Lord, one doctrine, and one faith. Regarding circumcision, all I can say is this: If it’s God’s priestly requirement, then, it is in effect, and ought to be observed. God makes the rules, not me. I obey and teach them. As a bible investigator, your job is to research and find out what God commanded, not look for ways to circumvent his laws. That was the downfall of King Soul. Adam was guilty of the same sin. Rather than obey God’s commandment, he flunked it and then blamed God for his failure. To the best of my knowledge, only two ordinances have been modified, not changed or abolished, but modified. The first was our diet. Adam and Eve had the instructions to eat only herbs. So, man was herbivorous. He remained that way until after the deluge, when God modified our diet and included meat, thus making man omnivorous. The second was the ritual of burnt sacrifice. That ordinance was observed until the live sacrifice of our High Priest, Jesus Christ, suspended the former. Note that I said, suspended, not abolished or cancelled. Christ had paid up for our transgressions to the end of this system. Burnt sacrifice will return to God’s temple at the coming of Our Lord. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 5:48am On Aug 08, 2010 |
Seyibrown; Your apology is accepted. Thanks for being magnanimous. Regarding the rest of your post, I wasn’t certain I wanted to respond, in the light of the fact that this exercise is no longer about bringing out the truth, bible truth. Rather, it’s taking the shape of “anything to win an argument.” I will indulge you, lest some feeble mind believes that your citations support your argument. Yes, you said: I stated in an earlier post that 'I do not believe that all healing is fake'. There are unscrupulous people who claim to be able to heal just for worldly gain.I never accused you of believing so. Firstly, if there were an actual healing, how can it be faked? OK, let’s get a handle on this thing. We are dealing with two categories here: Those who pretend to heal. They are among those you correctly tagged as unscrupulous. We both agree they are frauds. That leaves us with those who say they actually heal. That is why they ask people to come to, or call, them. The problem is: I have not seen any of these, and neither has anybody I know. Hence my challenge, which nobody is eager to pick up, not even you (no offence intended). So, until somebody picks up my challenge and proves me wrong, there are no faith healers, and any body purporting to be that is a liar. It’s my challenge or nothing. It gets worse. Even in the unlikelihood that one can actually pray to God and a third person is healed, the question remains. Is such a one a true servant of God? I wrote this: They may even perform miracles. But Jesus had these frauds in mind when he said: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matt.7:22-23). As you can see, the working of a miracle does not make one a servant of God. These people actually prophesied, worked miracles, and even cast out devils in the name of Christ, enough to indict the Lord with their work. Notice that Christ did not argue with their claim. They may have actually done those things. Nonetheless, he still denied them. What does that tell you? You can go on measuring a minister’s genuineness by his teaching, prophecy, and healing. But Jesus is not impressed. That leaves us with one question: How do we know or identify the real servants of God. Somebody asked that question. I believe it was Manmustwac who asked: So how can you tell the difference between genuine faith healing and fake faith healing because as far as am concerned its all fake? Some people have even been paid to act on stage. That should be the main focus of every believer. Who among the preachers out there are true or false? The Master himself testified that these false prophets would preach the name of Christ and even proclaim that he (Jesus) was the Christ, and would be so crafty and brilliant in their deceit that they should deceive many. As a matter of fact, the only people immune to such deception are the elect. Every other person is prone to deception. This is where self-examination comes into play. Implications? Am I an elect? If yes, I’m immune to their deception. If not, I can be deceived. I shall respond to your argument on the physical qualifications of a priest in the next segment. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 2:49am On Aug 01, 2010 |
Manmustwac, Yours is a very pertinent question: So how can you tell the difference between genuine faith healing and fake faith healing because as far as am concerned its all fake. Some people have even been paid to act on stage. Yes, we’ve been told to test, prove, and investigate all spirit and doctrine. It’s not an easy task. I’m sure you are familiar with the saying, “To be fore warned is to before armed.” The fore knowledge that these frauds would unleash untold deception is something to hold on to. You may want to know that the litmus test is not whether they recite the bible verses, call the name of God, of even effect the miracles they purport. The Master himself warned us that these would even preach and proclaim the name of Christ. Luke 21:8 warns: “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.” They may even perform miracles. But Jesus had these frauds in mind when he said: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matt.7:22-23). To compound matters, we were warned that these fellow would be so good in their trade that they would deceive the very elect. In other words, the only ones immune to their deception would be the elect. The funny thing is: when you exercise your right not to be deceived, they call you’re an unbeliever or faithless. Go figure. You must be ware of anyone who tells you that he is closer to God than you. They may not put it that directly, but when a man told you to come to his church, revival, crusade or whatever, to be healed, be prayed for, or obtain salvation, what did you think he meant? Some may say that you need to establish a point of contact. You may be asked to touch the screen of your TV, buy a hankie, oil, soap, etc. It’s like saying they know where Christ is and they would take you there. The 24th chapter of Matthew gives off a solid, unmistakable alarm: “ [23] Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. [24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. [25] Behold, I have told you before. [26] Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. [27] For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. There is no hiding where the Son of God is. And old saying goes: “When you are in doubt, don’t.” According to Jesus, the best place for effective prayer is in your home, in secret. “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly” (Matt 6:6). The most important question is: Why would we go to another human for anything if the Master himself, the creator of life, and the source of good health had empowered us with the ability to work wonders? The only prerequisite is faith and steadfast belief. And if you spruce things up with prayer and fasting, you are in. “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting (Matt. 17: 20-21). “Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matt. 21:21-22). What other authorization do we need? Running to another for a favor from God is tantamount to conceding our God given certificate to another who may not know the way. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 12:35am On Aug 01, 2010 |
Seyibrown; There are a couple of things you wrote that rubbed me the wrong way, which I’d prefer to let slide, as the contrary would derail this discussion. I don’t see myself as twisting your words. You cannot write things and expect readers not to paraphrase, or even bring in converse interpretation. I’ll give you an example. You wrote: Any intelligent person can tell from my responses to this post that I do not believe that God does not healAre you not, in effect, saying that only intelligent people can tell your belief? Conversely, anyone who is incapable of telling your belief is unintelligent; or plain silly. A hundred people would report it a hundred different ways. That is the nature of the language. This is the reason why ambiguity is a no-no in the literary world. You must leave no room for unintended interpretations. There are things you mentioned that have no bearing to the issue at hand. I have not said that God does not heal. And neither have I impugned your belief in the healing ability of God. And for goodness’ sake, why would you bring in spiritual purity when you fully understand that I was making reference to physical impairment? And how does the order of priesthood fit in? Whether a priest is of the line of Aaron and Levi, or whether the priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, as Jesus was and still is, does not change the rules. A priest must not have physical impairment, period. You, yourself, stated that God’s words are irrevocable. I know you are not saying that God didn’t order these physical requirements. If we both agree that those were God’s words, how can he change them, if he said he wouldn’t rescind his words? He is either a liar, or he is not. You tell me. This is where one’s ability to understand scriptures comes into play. You can question my understanding of the scriptures to your heart’s content. It’s your prerogative. This is how I read and understand the bible. I believe that the bible is the word of God. I also believe that God’s pronouncements are irrevocable. I also know that the bible cannot contradict itself. You’ll agree with me that some scriptures appear to contradict each other. It’s only that, appearance. So, what do I do? Armed with the foregoing conviction, I scour the bible, using all the tools at my disposal, including the prophecy of Isaiah: “Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the bosoms. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:13). So, let’s take our earlier disagreement as a guinea pig. I cited God’s physical restrictions for priests. Then you cited Paul’s epistle, which appeared to say that the Law had changed. But we know that the Law, which God had pronounced, cannot change or be broken. It cannot be taken back. I see no need to cite the bible. I believe you are aware of these provisions. So, is there a conflict? Does one scripture nullify the other? My answer is no. Paul’s statement of change coming with the Priesthood of Christ was not targeted at the priesthood requirement. So, what was Paul talking about? Remember that Paul was hot honored with the presence of Jesus. He came in the game during overtime. He never wrote Gospels. He wrote letters; hence his writings were called epistles. That particular letter was addressed to the Hebrews. These were new converts, who were heretofore entrenched in the rudiments of the old. You well know that old habits resist change. Those Hebrew still held on to the old traditions that Christ sought to change. Paul was admonishing them to let go of traditions of men and hang on to the commandments of God. Before the coming of our lord, people sacrificed animals, by the medium of High Priests, to curry God’s favor, or gain remission of sin. Getting them to forgo those personal efforts that they had latched onto for millennia and get under the umbrella of Christ’s sacrifice was a tough sale. It’s like telling contemporary Christians to abandon Christmas observation. The priesthood of Jesus did not change the requirements of priesthood, but the once all-important sacrifice. Paul was trying to impress upon them that the sacrifice that was performed by the priests of Aaron and Levi of limited office had been suspended in favor of the of Christ’s sacrifice, which endures forever. Paul couldn’t have meant the law was abolished because Christ himself said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill. And his letter to the Hebrews had nothing to do with the requirements of priesthood or the qualification of aspirants. He only sought to encourage them to leave those scarifies and accept the new. To reiterate, this topic is not about you, your belief, your practice, or your power. It’s about those who say they are healers when all they do is perpetrate fraud on the people. You cannot say you have no knowledge of self-styled Evangelists, crusaders, prophets, ministers, who go about preying on the naivety of the people. They coined such terms as faith healing, love gift, point of contact etc. Anybody, who does not see them for the fraud that they are, has himself to blame. As for me, I’ll exercise, to the fullest, my mandated right to prove every spirit, and doctrine, as passed on to me by Paul and John. But since you have interjected yourself in the debate, I’ll tell you the same thing. If you have the ability to pray a sick person to health, you must prove it, to be believed. Pick out a person of your own choosing, but known by people to have a chronic or permanent disability. Pray that person to health. My preference would be a blind, paraplegic, or quadriplegic, since any improvement in their condition would be more readily verifiable. Do that, and you will have my undivided attention and loyalty. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 11:42pm On Jul 30, 2010 |
No one could say it straighter or simpler than Manmustwac who wrote: Stevie Wonder is still blind because all faith healing is fake. Simple.And nothing could illustrate it more vividly than Mudley313’s post (see above). @ Toba, you are not gonna turn the table. The onus of a proof is on you or any peddler of faith healing. I can produce at least 20 people, including two of my uncles, who have gone far and wide— from Father Ede to Sister… (I’ve forgotten her name) to Pastor Obadare, and are still no better than they were. But all I ask you to do is produce just one person you personally know, who was blind, or crippled from birth, who can now see or walk, complements of Pastor this or Prophet that. For these false ministers, this is a classic case of put up or shut up. Let the healers show a known paraplegic or so who, sans the magic of modern medicine, walked again, by virtue of their healing power. Let them show us one verifiable miracle, or pull tent. Maybe, it’s time for a showdown, the kind that Elijah championed atop mount Carmel, when he stared down the prophets of Baal, as recorded in 1Kings 18: 20-46. Nigerian healers go all over the world preaching and healing, and they stood there and watched the only President who gave us direction, die. There is not doubt that these evangelists crave power and wealth. Can anybody tell me a shorter and easier way of achieving this than to have healed President Umaru Yar Adua? The entire nation would have been his, served on a golden platter. Has anybody asked why healing is now called faith healing. There was no such term when Jesus walked the earth. Contemporary Evangelists injected faith so they can impugn the afflicted for their failure. But my post above debunks that tactic, as it is the faith of the one asking the favor from Christ that is relevant. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 9:43pm On Jul 30, 2010 |
Seyibrown, when I engage in a debate, I do so making certain that the subject of the discussion does not run away. The subject of this discussion is the authenticity of present-day healers. The initiator of this thread, Abulbanaat, buttressed his opinion by saying that even a famous figure is yet to receive his sight, implying that if these healers were legit, somebody would have helped Stevie Wonder. I agreed with him, pinioning that it was their chance to hit the mother lode on the wealth and power they crave. You seemed to have an opposing view. You injected the possibility that Mr. Wonder’s condition may be as a result of choice. You appeared to blame the afflicted for the persistent condition. It was you who introduced Pastor Obadare airing on the side that God wanted to use him in his work. Even then, you weren’t so sure, as your position hinged on uncertainties. I attempted to impress upon you that given the abundance of false prophets and teachers, how are we certain that these preachers are servants of the lord? I used the scriptures to establish that God had rejected some of those. You either agree with me, or you don’t. If you don’t, refute my argument; don’t throw scriptures at me. Use them. I asked a couple of questions that came back unanswered. How can we engage in a discussion if you don’t answer questions? I asked the following: Can you verify any of the above assumptions? Do you know, for a fact, that God intends to use the pastor’s blindness? Is the pastor certain the Lord sent for him? We sometimes mistake our desire for God’s calling. You may do well to present someone you personally know, who has been blind or crippled from birth who now has sight, or is not lame again, as a result of the faith healer's work. Instead, you came back with bible citations of your own. I’d prefer you state an opinion, which you can then support with bible citation. That would tell me what I’m going after. This is not a show of who can cite the scriptures more. I’ve read through your bible quotations and could have taken it any which way. But how do I know what your point is. The first rule in an argument is never to make your opponents case. So, state your position, and then support it with the Lord’s word. Then we can go from there. On that note, I’ll defer my response to your scripture until you’ve done justice to my questions and made clear what your point is so we don’t go down a different road. |
| Religion / Re: Why Steve Wonder Is Still Blind by PrinceEmek: 10:43am On Jul 30, 2010 |
My sister, Seyibrown, I love it when uncertainties, unknowns, and probabilities are employed as evidence to prove a case, or support an argument. If you know, for a fact, that Stevie never wanted to be healed, present it. By asking: Do you know that people who do not wish to be healed will not be healed no matter how much you pray for them?you, in effect, imply that he refused to be made whole, and that is why his condition persists. Secondly, Mr. Stevie Wonder is used here as a sample of the blinds of the world. There are many Stevies out there, many of whom I have personal knowledge of, who have scoured the four corners of the earth, in search of relief. You may do well to present someone you personally know, who has been blind or crippled from birth who now has sight, or is not lame again, as a result of the faith healer's work. It also makes my day when "healers" pull the faith or belief card. Many a times, when the self-styled healer fails, he blames the faith of the one requiring healing. I’ll have you know that it is not the faith of the afflicted that is tried in any healing procedure, but that of he that intercedes, or the supplicant. In this case, it is the minister himself. Matt. 17, verses 19-20 read: “Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief:” The unbelief of his disciples, not the afflicted. Recall that Lazarus’ faith was not required because he was already dead. Yet, he received life. It was the faith of his sister that mattered. The Centurion’s servant who was healed was not there to demonstrate his faith. Rather it was the supplicant, the Centurion’s faith that counted. How about Jairus’ daughter? Did Jesus not resurrect her even though she was not the supplicant? Again, you use probability to explain Pastor Obadare’s persistent blindness, and his continued service of the Lord. You wrote: Pastor Obadare probably knows that God wants to use him in his state of blindness (and he is working mightily through him). When you know what God's plans are for you, why would you go chasing something you don't need to get to where he is taking you? Can you verify any of the above assumptions? Do you know, for a fact, that God intends to use the pastor’s blindness? Is the pastor certain the Lord sent for him? We sometimes mistake our desire for God’s calling. What I have to write next may appear insensitive but it is the bible truth. Remember from the pages of the bible that God is not a God of confusion. Once any words have come out of his mouth, they are never rescinded. He is the God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There is no need citing these facts. In the light of that, why would God require Pastor Obadare’s services? The 21st chapter of Leviticus reads: “16] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, [17] Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. [18] For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, [19] Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, [20] Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; [21] No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. [22] He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. [23] Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.” Not everyone who preaches the word of God serves the Lord. Remember the Lord’s instruction regarding the time of the end. “Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them” (Luke 21:8}. People can do what they want in the name of serving God. But he all-important question is: Did God send them? Jer.27 instructs: [14] Therefore hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon: for they prophesy a lie unto you. [15] For I have not sent them, saith the LORD, yet they prophesy a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you. See also Jer.29: 8] For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed. [9] For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD. There are many such Divine utterances, but I trust you get the picture. As you can see, the fact that those prophets teach not to serve the King of Babylon is not enough to make them servants of the Lord. |
| Politics / Re: Governor Ikedi Ohakim’s Looting Spree Continues ! by PrinceEmek: 12:56am On Jul 28, 2010 |
Come on, guys, lets not kill the messenger, namely Sahara Reporters. Consider that there is a 50% chance they may be onto something. Besides, it’s not the responsibility of whistleblowers to name names or provide evidence, not even proof. All we need from them is heads-up. There are people whose job it is to investigate. If the information doesn’t pan out, then we know we’ve got porous mouths on our hands. If a mad man, standing in front of your house, points at your roof and shouts, “fire,” conventional wisdom dictates that you run out and investigate. If he is wrong, you discount his story, and go back to sleep. But if he is right, you save your life and property. If you ignore him because is a lunatic, you may have yourself to blame. It wouldn’t cost a thing to check it out. |
| Politics / Re: Governor Ikedi Ohakim’s Looting Spree Continues ! by PrinceEmek: 4:15am On Jul 27, 2010 |
Please do tell, Manuch, I pray. I’m running stack crazy that this is happening in Imo, a state that is already being treated like the ugly stepchild by the Federal Govt. |
| Politics / Re: Wear T-shirts With ‘police’ Inscription And Go To Jail by PrinceEmek: 10:09pm On Jul 26, 2010 |
kai-osama!« #12 on: July 19, 2010, 01:05 PM » i don't like this critics. i am a police man, so respect me for that, no bad comments pls. There lies the problem, right there, folks. Mr. Olokpa wants respect. So, we should not voice out the evils of the NPF because he is a policeman. What you don’t understand, Mr. Olokpa, is the Police has no authority to pass laws. If they want that statute instituted, they should go to the Legislature possessing jurisdiction over the affected constituency. The merits are then debated at the appropriate level. I’m sure someone there would know that Police is a fashion brand as well as a designer and there is a rock band called the Police. We are tired of the blind leading the blind. |
(1) (2) (of 2 pages)
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 363 |