Oluwatimileyin Rebecca

Rebecca, will you come to a space tonight to defend your position? Spiricoco became a moderator after the debate was effectively over, and we opened the floor to everyone. During the debate, we had the same amount of time as Temi. If you preach a heresy, you are a heretic. But Lekan invited you to a space when you said that if you 'checkmate' him on theology, he would run. Can you come and do that checkmating tonight?

Is this really the heresy in question: the emphasis on the word “appearing” instead of “coming”? At least from what I’ve observed as a neutral, the debate seems much closer to a discussion of semantics than a denial of any core Christian doctrine. Unless I’m missing something deeper, the disagreement appears to center on terminology and metaphysics, not on whether Christ will physically manifest. I’ve also noticed several people misrepresenting what the brother actually said yesterday: “They don’t believe Jesus ascended physically.” “They don’t believe Jesus will come back/appear physically.” But those statements are not what is being argued. The real point of contention seems to be whether Christ’s future appearance should necessarily be described as a “coming back” or “returning.” And that question is tied to ideas about distance, dimension, and location: Is Christ presently in a spiritual realm “far away” in the sense that He must return from somewhere else, or is His manifestation better described as an appearing rather than a movement through space? In my humble and limited understanding, I don’t think the distinction is necessary. I personally see no issue with referring to the appearance of Christ as the Second Coming. What troubles me more is that the reaction to this debate seems deeper than the actual point being argued. There appears to be a strong hostility toward the minister in question: accusations of heresy, a lack of charity, and very little brotherly love. It makes me wonder whether there are other underlying issues influencing the response beyond this particular doctrinal disagreement.

Egboonnn🤣🤣🤣 I'm saying we should not fight for the creed and ignore scripture. Did the Apostle's use appear to describe the very same thing? Why should I choose between a creed and the words of the Apostles? I hope you get me now sir?

The fact that we have to open space to argue about the second coming of Jesus Christ is enough proof that your clan is a clan of particular concern. But no, some of you wanted to use “it’s his birthday” to gaslight us. The other MOG was using someone’s past to combat his Papa’s unrepentant questionable teachings. Godspeed to the parties involved mehn.

Truth be said. The space is not fair. Spiricoco is controlling proceedings and skipping the rules. Next time, let someone else organize the space. You can't be giving your opponent time and saying you want to say something before Q&A continues.

Earth is visible. Heaven is invisible. Both are in the same place. The only difference between both is human visibility. Jesus went from the visible to the invisible. And when the church reach the whole world with the Gospel, Jesus will become visible. This is false doctrine.