วีดีโอ

I receive my babies 🙏

Glory to God Almighty powerful teaching🙏🙏🙏🙏💪💪💪.

Wanted data and time I wonder he's preaching at wedding 😢

Good teaching.

This pastor is teaching good

Amen

God bless you mum, I love you and your teaching

But sir since trousers was not invented then and it's now invented how do we call it

The best explanation on the subject I have come across so far. Respects Man of God!

I have faith in the name of Jesus Christ i will receive my positive pregnancy test at the end of this Dec 2024

Bro you’re adding to scripture that’s a sign of anti christ

It the way mummy temi laughed after hearing I love you mummy. I love you very much mummy Thank you very much mummy for saying yes to God ma More grace upon ministry ma

Halleluijah Jesus I believe that you will give me the fruit of my womb in Dec 04 2024.

AMEN

Simply ❤ Glory to God

I receive my miracle babies in Jesus name🙏🙏God did it💃🏻💃🏻 Praise the Lord🙌🙌🙌

I have read it before in Leviticus so pls stop deceiving people, aside from Deut read Leviticus

As i received this massage now i declare my womb fertile Congratulations to me am pregnant

I connect myself to this alter ,therefore, j carry my triplets in Jesus' Name, Amen

1:57:34

Amen

As I watch this video, I am next in line in Jesus name.

Amen, Amen, Amen

I connect to this altar for my quadriplets babies even though I am now 50 and my period ceased 10 years ago when I clocked 40. With God all things are possible.

❤❤❤❤

Djd you also note the word assembly. A woman should not only have authority on her husband and also the assembly

AMEN

I remember what you did before, the lord will do it again, I have been conceiving but I lost the three kids repeatedly, may God reward and double my blessings live kids 🙏

I need boy and girl ohh Lord Jesus

I will carry boy and girl twins

This man reminds me of the SNAKE in the garden. Changing Gods words to accommodate HIS beliefs. What’s sad is all the soldiers repeating it. 😢

That’s not right! Pastors can be wrong or acting as pastors for different reasons. Just because they want, think, or demand something means they are right. We should always go to THE WORD OF GOD for answers. 😮

It does not say husband!! It said man.

This is error please seek God

Some will say it is moral law, God bless you pastor

I just love this teaching, where is this church located,?

his wrong every church has a angel over it he has a misunderstand of revelation

This is powerful.

I'm still waiting for the covering story. Pastor talks in circles.

Ooo no pastor.

Thanking God for this message. I am from India and this video popped up in my mobile. I am recieving the blessing of my womb in Jesus Name. I am passed the age of getting pregnant and the doctors had given up on me. But Jesus Never gave upon me and will make it happen. Glory belongs to my God. My Son Samuel will be born next yr at this time in Jeuss Name. Watched it on 16.9.2024. Will come back to testify.

Great teaching my brother preach it my brother.

💃💃💃💃

Amen I receive my miracle baby

this message blesses me and provides answer to my question. God increase you Man of GOD

I receive my twin babies in Jesus name amen 🙌

This pastor is right. God bless you pastor

I receive my grand triplets by faith in Jesus name Amen.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is Paul really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider, imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved or shorn? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil, then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seem questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

I will return with a miracle testimony on my babies God will bless me to conceive,carry and bring forth by faith 🙏 🙌