JERRY MARVE

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

BEC2026... The cloud has gathered. Tomorrow, it will start to yield. This is BELIEVERS' EQUIP CONFERENCE 2026.
I look forward to receiving you, in Jos and/or online.
Spread the word.

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

This clip...

Well, Apostle Arome does not need defending here, but yes, I was in the very session where he made the statement now causing uproar everywhere, and surely, it was made in a context. A context not contained in the trending clip. You can still disagree with his point, but at least, make sure you're disagreeing with the point he was actually making. Okay? So, this is not to stifle scrutiny.

Also, there is no justification for hurling personal, body insults just because you disagree with his position or with anyone's position for that matter. Hah!?

Sha, I just wanted to post this clip. Didn't plan to talk sef. As a principle, I no de do ministry of defense unless de matter serious. And dis current one no serious, na just agenda and some tantrum from the lower heavens.

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

Matthew 6. From vs 9. Not Matthew 9, please.

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

I need to make more time for conversations like this...

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

Longer version here

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

@KingdmHeritage Heritage!!!

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

Dont say I didn't do anything for you o!

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@MrsScotty_M @dithmemzykin Alright
Thank you

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@MrsScotty_M @dithmemzykin What if one earned a UK Masters degree will proficiency in English still be required?
Thank you

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@arinzemount @ThePChris Their conceived "God" was wondering about waiting for man to have a place of abode. The restlessness of their "God" is too mouth opening

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

Open Matthew 9 & start screaming Youuu. Youuu. Youuu. Then go mute on vs 14 & 15 as if Matthew didn't write those to clarify vs 12.

Unrelated Question:
That vacuous, banal egregiousness of invoking 'Olodo uprising,' na clownery be dat, abi na irony?

Make una de fear God o!

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

FEAR GOD o!

There really is no context where it is biblically accurate to say "Jesus is not better than the believer."

Jesus as the head of the church, for instance, is not an exact parallel to husband as head of the wife. Both the husband and the wife are creatures. But both Jesus and the church are not creatures. Jesus exists by the necessity of His own being. The parallel therefore, though incredibly illuminating, has colossal limitations.
No matter how you situate our relationship with Jesus, one critical difference is that whatever (attribute) Jesus gives or even shares with us, He has such attribute necessarily, but we have it contingently. Read it again.

Secondly, Jesus may give me His righteousness, yet I cannot transmit it to others, but He continues to be the only one who can transmit it. So, you see, righteousness in me is not an exact mirror of righteousness in Jesus. Also, righteousness in Jesus is not merely a status. It is exhaustive. Jesus' righteousness means that He can not do (I don't mean He will not do, but I mean He can not do) anything wrong, because His righteousness is not just a legal status. It is not imputed. Righteousness is grounded in His beign. I hope you know what that means. The believer however CAN do things that are unrighteous, even though she is legally righteous. So, while righteousness exists in both cases, they are not identical in every sense. More, Jesus is the explanation of the believer's righteousness, and yet the same Jesus is the explanation of His own righteousness.

Thirdly, I need Jesus to sustain whatever I receive from Him. I continue to need Him to keep me in His righteousness, in His grace, in eternal life, etc. If Jesus were to leave me at any point (blessed assurance, He will not), I will lose everything He has imputed to me. He upholds all things. I don't. I stand because He is able to keep and continues to keep me. He has no keeper. No one sustains Him in eternal life, or in righteousness. His righteousness does not need any support to stay intact. Mine needs to be sustained. It is wrong therefore to say His righteousness is NOT better than mine. More, I think it is meaningless to say so.

Besides, according to scripture, the root and the branches are not the same simply because they both share in a common life (sap). As Paul said in his Roman correspondence, "remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you." If you are being upheld by another – one who is self-sufficient and needs no upholding – it is both inaccurate and irresponsible to say your Supporter is not better than you, particularly with reference to the very attribute by which he holds you up.

It is also sloppy to say because Jesus is our righteousness, and our sanctification, He is therefore not better than us. That same passage says He is our Wisdom. Is Jesus better than us in wisdom or not? If you say 'Jesus is not more righteous than me,' can you say 'Jesus is not more wise than me'?

I saw someone making a money analogy. It fails. If I have ten thousand Naira and I give it to you, it is no longer available to me to give to another person. And if you, the recipient, are generous, you can gift it to your friend. Jesus being our ransom is something infinitely richer and different than the money analogy suggests. The same Jesus is the ransom for us all. He does not diminish through donation. But whereas I can give you the ten thousand I was given, if I chose to, I can not transfer the righteousness I've received. Nevertheless, Jesus can. How then can I be as delusional as to say He is not better than me, even in righteousness!?

Okay, "As He is, so are we in this world." Yes, but it is: AS He is; not WHO He is.

Heb 7:7 (NKJV) says, "beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better." We are the blessed. We are lesser than our 'Blesser.' And He – Jesus – is better than us.

Again, 1Pet 2:17 says you should FEAR God.

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

LAGOS!!!!

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

Such audacious, arrogant ignorance!

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@Lawal_oluwadami Na wa oooo

Equating Inherent with assigned

The effrontery 🤔

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

REPENTANCE

I think some of you are missing the context of the story, per Luke 15.

The allegation against Jesus was that He received sinners & ate with them. Well, did Jesus think the people making that allegation were righteous & truly didn't need to repent, as they implied? This issue alone should settle the status of the 99 & the possible interpretation. Whoever the 99 were, they were not Angels, since the lost sheep was one of them. And since there are no persons who do not need repentance, the 99 can't be considered to be saved persons. Also, if they were saved, it means, the one sheep was simply a back-slider & not a 'sinner' per se, since it used to be in the flock of 100 sheep, before getting lost. But, the charge was about Jesus receiving SINNERS & eating with them.

Secondly, to insinuate that Jesus did not mean for His interlocutors (The Pharisees & Scribes) to locate themselves somewhere in His response is strained & completely out of pattern, with Jesus. In fact, He would tell a story sometime & the Pharisees would be livid, believing Jesus told the parable "against" them (For instance, see Luke 20:19, but for context read from vs 1).

Thirdly, and this amplifies the second point: Jesus is said to have responded with A Parable. Not 3 parables. (Read the text). Meaning He told a parable containing 3 stories. In fact, you can tell that the lost sheep & the lost coin are clearly the same point being made in two ways. In the KJV, the stories are framed (in vs 4 & 8) like this: "What man of you, having... Either what woman having..." It is in vs 11 that the narrator makes a brief comment to introduce Jesus' telling of the story of the 2 boys.
Since it is one parable, it means each story is supposed to both reinforce & complement the others, & you'd need to consider all three together to get Jesus' overall point.
In the final story, Jesus contrasted the attitude of the Pharisees & Scribes on the one hand with the attitude of the SINNERS, on the other hand. The older brother was so self righteous that one, he said he had NEVER done anything wrong in his dealing with his dad (vs 29), making him the (self)righteous one needing NO repentance. Nobody then, hearing that story, believed he never did wrong. Also, he was ANGRY his brother was home. Wait, was that righteous ANGER?

But more. Fourthly: the allegation was 'this man receives sinners & EATS with them'. The final scene of the 3-stories-1-Parable is the father trying to get the older son to the feast. So, the older son is clearly OUTSIDE the house. This parallels the 99 sheep that were left in the desert, separated from the venue of the celebration. The inference about the 99 is warranted by this last scene.
What is both humbling & indicting is that, just as the father went out to bring the younger boy home, he also went out in the middle of the feast, to bring the older brother to the feast too. The genius of Jesus' story telling here is unmatched. He concluded the parable without resolution. Did the father succeed? Did the older brother make it home? We are not told. We are not told because Jesus is saying the answer to that question would be somewhat "determined" by the older brother (Pharisees/Scribes). Yet, what is clear is the father wants them both at the feast. But, only the younger brother, the obvious sinner, is at the feast when the curtain closes on the parable.
The Pharisees said: "This man receives sinners." Yes. Point however is, all are sinners, & so, if anyone refuses God's diagnosis of their situation, they forfeit God's help. In implying that they were not sinners, these Pharisees forfeited salvation, which those obvious sinners were earger to embrace at the time.
So, there were sinners, there were the self-righteous, & there was The Saviour. But the self-righteous did not accept the one who accepted them & therefore were not at the feast

Jesus' point is: "My feast is on. I want all in, but if you reject me, you exclude yourself"

Could go on...

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@TGNLEAD Powerful truth. Romans 8 reminds us that if God is for us, who can be against us? Holiness isn't just a shield against human judgment; it's a reflection of our gratitude for the grace that already justified us. Praise God that He has the final word.

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@DuncanWaYesu @Okanesugoi_ If there’s a distinction which is my interest. You claim this "enables better interpretation".

What are the Gospels? and
What is the New Testament?

John didn't wrap up an isolated era. Repentance and fishing for men didn't stop with him it’s the foundation of the New Covenant

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@KeshetaRichard https://t.co/b4okjRsVse

[Brother Possible @BrotherPossible]

"There's this disingenuous thing that Hypergrace people do where in trying to hold that Jesus is the perfect image/expression of God, they put a full stop where God put a comma. The ascension of Christ is not the complete story of Jesus."

- Apostle Gideon Odoma

God bless you, Sir.

[JERRY MARVE @JerryMarve]

@KeshetaRichard The best you've got to say