Image123:
i said it is special because it's not just like every othe book, and i have consistently insisted that my point is not on the special quality but on the Bible not written at once. i asked you to go back and re-read since you seem to have forgotten but it seems to also lazy to do that. Here it is then,
Yes, the revelation of God's will to man was progressive. It was made complete in the new testament. In the new testament, all things are ready, and nothing is needed for addition again.
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

The Bible was released in series, like releasing a book in chapters until the whole thing was complete, except that it is not just like every other book, it is special. There is no change there. i used the word 'progressive' in the sense of ongoing, or gradual or developing. Not in the sense of being a radical or a reformist. The testaments are like step by step until you reach a goal. It's reason that you focus on the goal/destination, instead of how one step is not the same step as the other step. that way, you'll not end up confusing yourself.

What are these sources you are on about? You seem shy to disclose them. You may hav to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NT gives a different picture and meaning. The Bible and believers in the Bible attest to the fact the NT is a clearer picture and meaning of the OT, it completes it.

So every other book is the same? Sheesh. The Harry Potter books were also "progressive". The story was also gradual and it developed. The sources aren't to be found in some primitive books, they're based on reason, evidence and secular values.

Image123:
You said "This is why I said you're ignorant about how the Bible came about. [size=13pt]If you knew anything about that process, you'll know that the paragraphs and spaces weren't already there[/size]. You keep saying that the divisions were inherent yet so far, you've been unable to show that these divisions were inherent." In this link, https://www.nairaland.com/1171126/adeboye-same-sex-marriage-against-god/10#14400771
It sounded so ridiculous that i immediately said Paragraphs and spaces were already there. how can one write without spaces?, then i gave you the wiki link. Now, you want to dishonestly twist things. Shows you're only interested in an argument, not in understanding the biblical viewpoints. The fact that the many translations into many languages end up with the same number of chapters and verses makes nonsense of your assumptions. And where did i seem to think that working on the Sabbath is a moral issue while tolerating slavery isn't a moral issue? Am i now in your brain?

You're seriously asking how one can write without spaces? This is such an unserious line of thought. So you think the fact that there are spaces between the words in this sentence means that each of them deserves to be a verse or a chapter? Ridiculous. And you claim I'm just arguing for fun? Your reference to different languages just shows how little you understand. You said working on the Sabbath was a moral issue and implied that since the issue of slavery wasn't addressed, it wasn't a moral issue.

Image123:
It's common sense i suppose, that's why i said it is inherent. God doesn't have to tell you that man is different from other animals, mammals and primates even though they can be classed together in some instances. It's no contradiction, its just an issue of grouping. Anyone can understand basic taxonomy. how you find it hard to understand simple classifications is mind-disturbing.

Did God do the classifying or are you just doing it on your own? If God doesn't have to say anything, why did he bother with giving any commandments? Why did he bother with the beatitudes?

Image123:
You don't need, right?

I already have it.

Image123:
You are either very dishonest or very forgetful. You said "My point is that you do not have to be literate to actually touch a computer". Now you are asking if a hand is needed. You said that was YOUR POINT, now you're on about who knows what. What exactly is your point, or are you pointless? You are actually showing that you do not know the meaning of faith. God reveals Himself to the gullible, yes.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That was a rhetorical question because you were absurdly thinking that only literate people could interact with computers. For some reason, the word "interact" seems to confuse you.

Image123:
God is not a broken record as it were. All that is needed for our salvation is already revealed in the Scriptures. People are still inspired today, but not to write scriptures as that is already complete. No one is saying you should swallow just any story that walks your way, i wonder where you got that idea. All you need to do is to believe God, and His Word(the Scriptures)

Believing what was written in the scriptures amounts to swallowing just anything from my point of view. Sure he isn't a broken record until he decides to perform a miracle or appear to people.

Image123:
The instructions of Jesus are commandments that i obey and that i believe everyone should obey. On God's decisions, i think otherwise and so does the Bible. That settles it for me, your opinions are irrelevant in this case.

They're irrelevant until I slap you or you get sued for your car and you're expected to give them your house too. What a joke.

Image123:
i guess you've been to one. It surely didn't look like it helped you much. No, thanks.

Oh it helped me learn more about the Bible than it appears you have done. You're welcome.

Image123:
If it 'abolished slavery', it would just be personal correspondence right?

Sure. That is why someone like Jesus should have said something about it.

Image123:
Please suggest one to me, thanks. Sportsmen aren't being bought? Do you leave on this planet? There is usually a lot of noise about buying players during transfer windows and there is a swag attached to being the most expensive buy. So, i guess the title is not your problem, the buying is not your problem, the salary is. i've read of slaves that were given salaries, the ones that refused to work were denied of their salaries. And there are many workers in Nigeria where i live who are being owed months of salaries which would definitely not be paid, at least not in full. These people call themselves teachers, accountants, secretaries, nurses, personal assistants and other nice names. Are they slaves? Not funny but i think they are, seems i'm with you on this one.

Nah. It is relevant so I won't bother with suggesting one. That is your line of reasoning it seems. You have to be grossly ignorant of the use of language to think that sportsmen are being "bought" as slaves were once bought and sold. What a joke. No, actually buying people is the problem. People being denied a salary aren't slaves, they are people who can address such grievances at a court unlike slaves.

Image123:
Because i don't have to discuss things simply because they are relevant.

Wow. This shows you have no idea how to have a discussion.

Image123:
Try to remember those words, you might need to repeat them when you die. Here is the great commission and what is expected of me.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; [size=16pt]but he that believeth not shall be damned[/size].
God did not tell me to talk to Him on your behalf, He told me to talk/preach to you so that you can come talk to Him. It's very simple what happens when you choose not to believe, consider those words of Jesus extra carefully.

Yeah yeah. Threaten me with your hell. While you're at it, invite the Muslim and the Viking to threaten me too.

Image123:
Sorry i do not understand the bolded 'fact', can you explain with scriptural proof? Also, this God's aim to remove evil from the earth, can you show me? Peter's 2epistles are scriptures, live with it or tear them out of all the Bibles you can find.

Go and read the story of Noah in the Bible.

Image123:
Again, Were Jesus' and God's words also selected at this meeting that you seem to be unhappy about? Are you seriously imagining that i do not know about the council of nicea, constantine and other councils? You really think i know about your uncles(Nietzsche and Russel)and don't know about 'the origin of the Bible'? Indeed, a thousand councils and governments cannot remove one verse from the Word of God. You can rest assured that the complete Word of God is found in the Bible in your hand(hope you didn't tear off the Peter epistles, i didn't mean that literally as a command).
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.

i believe you have read about Voltaire, you can continue from where he stopped, perhaps you might make it ehn.

What a fake image you are. Those people decided what was to become the Word of God itself. I really don't see what point you're making referencing historical unbelievers.

Image123:
When someone says "Suffer little children to come unto me . . . " by your reasoning can mean that you're supposed to torture children then kill them in order for them to get to heaven.", he obviously needs sackcloth to cover himself in shame. Jesus loves the little children and there's nothing you can do about that. as for you, if you want mercy, confess your sins and REPENT of them.

And you're just confirming your poor understanding of the language.

Image123:
Thought it should be obvious, you can also think as an option. Red for scriptures, Green for your words, Purple for mine. Appreciate NL forum colors, what are you always bitter about. The faith of many is an available evidence presented to you. i'm showing you how unreliable reasoning and evidence alone can get. Also, don't forget you can pray, God wants you to.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Jesus has been calling you for years now. He invested His life on the cross of calvary for you. He died for you. All you need to do is accept it.

No, faith isn't evidence. And you're now telling me that reason and evidence isn't good enough so you add faith (which to you is evidence)? What an absurdity.

Image123:
i thought i brought up the example when i said "Different individuals have their different softspots and weaknesses. Some folks naturally detest stealing and are NATURALLY disciplined enough not to steal. Other folks are so principled and honest and would not tell lies. Some other person values his honour and will never sleep with another man's wife. This doesn't negate the fact that these despised sins are what some other folks cannot do without, or must give in to frequently. It's natural, and they 'find themselves just attracted' to these despicable acts. It's a similar thing with homosexuality. Trying to force a natural angle on it doesn't absolve the sinner. Sin is sin and must be dealt with and frowned at."Here(https://www.nairaland.com/1171126/adeboye-same-sex-marriage-against-god/10#14450992). i don't do red herrings, its all yours. Every man is a natural born sinner, but we all have to repent and believe in God, or else we will be found useless to God on judgement day and punished(put in hell). That's what you do to damaged goods or corrupt files on your hard disk, you remove them if they cannot be treated. god has given us the treatment on the cross, look and live.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Okay. So you were the one who brought up the example but it still is a red herring. Comparing a feeling of attraction to stealing is a red-herring.

Image123:
on your C to Z assumptions, i don't do baseless assumptions. In assuming, we can assume anything, like i can assume to be a dog and my computer a human being, its just crazy and pointless. let's face reality instead.

That's no assumption, that's what according to the Bible, God commanded some people to do.

Image123:
That have repented and have been cleansed and forgiven. That is the gospel, the goodnews. That all men can be saved, can start anew. There is hope for you too.

Nah I'd rather stay away from those people. And that is why Christianity is inherently immoral. Just mumble some words and you can be free of any atrocity.

Image123:
You're asking in proxy then. i'll say if i've not already said and depending on the context, that Jesus Christ is the reason for my hope. i'll respond to the remainder later, have to go.

Mmmhmmm.

Image123:
Is Russel not a man? Is Nietzsche not a man? Are you not emulating them? Why then should i not emulate Jesus or any of the apostles? i'm pointing out the trend to you. The atheist life trends and gravitates towards the same destination. the christian life also trends towards the same destination. i'm doing you and yours a big favour.

Emulating them in what way? After all, Ingersoll was a man, Thomas Paine too was a man so what exactly is your point? What trend? What you're doing is simply a fallacy of hasty generalization. Cherry picking people who you think led bad lives and claiming that whatever you think they did wrong is what atheists should be doing is just fallacious.

Image123:
Is the father's seed not planted in the mother? Answer please. i do not imply that the mother doesn't contribute any genetic material. Do you think that when the seed is planted into the ground, it doesn't get anything from the ground. Pls, do not let me question your JSSCE result if you have one(that is if you studied in nigeria).

The very concepts that you're using simply tells me that you're trying to force fit science to fit the primitive ideas written in the Bible. When you're using the analogy with planting seed in the ground, you are implying that the mother doesn't contribute genetic material. Or do you think the ground contributes genetic material to the planted seed?

Image123:
What is atrocious about the terms and conditions in the scriptures?

The idea that belief frees you from responsibility. The idea that you were created sick and commanded to be whole? The ridiculous notion that God created man, allowed man to be tempted and for redemption, sacrificed himself to himself in order to cancel the punishment that he was bringing about.

Image123:
i've already answered this.
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter said that the writings of Paul were scriptures, do you recognise scriptures better than Peter?

More ignorance. Who told you that it was Peter the disciple of Jesus who wrote 2 Peter? Educate yourself.

This discussion has dragged on long enough so I guess you can have the last word here but I'll end my contribution here by saying once again that frankly, I don't care about the will of Adeboye's God with regards to same sex marriage or anything else in particular.

thehomer: This discussion has dragged on long enough so I guess you can have the last word here but I'll end my contribution here by saying once again that frankly, I don't care about the will of Adeboye's God with regards to same sex marriage or anything else in particular.

Then you should have ignored the thread, don't you have some self control? Good to see you run out of steam as you readily assume. i pray rather that you run out of steam in your fight against God, He will remain eternally relevant to your life.

Image123:
because there's a day of reckoning.

So why don't we wait for the day of reckoning instead of passing judgment. Isn't adultery a sin? Fornication? When will we criminalize them? Hypocrite.

Image123:
there is nothing like a gay Christian. a Christian cannot be gay. it's either light or darkness, they don't go together.

What about the fornicating christians, adulterous christians? Are they not christians? Corrupt christians? If you have to be free of sin to be a christian then I guess there are no christians in the world.

bgirl:

So why don't we wait for the day of reckoning instead of passing judgment. Isn't adultery a sin? Fornication? When will we criminalize them? Hypocrite.

Can you be clearer with your post and line of thought?

bgirl:

What about the fornicating christians, adulterous christians? Are they not christians? Corrupt christians? If you have to be free of sin to be a christian then I guess there are no christians in the world.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Image123:
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

my brother 1 john 3:9 is not a letter to the church, John was very much a believer that was still soaked in the law and jewish tradition. I am quite surprised, considering the fact that you are quite familiar with the Pauline epistles.

Of course, a gay person can be a Christian. A Christian is simply a believer of the gospel, nothing more .

shdemidemi:


my brother 1 john 3:9 is not a letter to the church, John was very much a believer that was still soaked in the law and jewish tradition. I am quite surprised, considering the fact that you are quite familiar with the Pauline epistles.

Of course, a gay person can be a Christian. A Christian is simply a believer of the gospel, nothing more .

i don't care who any of the letters or books are written to. My concern are the contents of the Word and how it affects me. Its similar to listening to the news. What happens even in another country may affect decision and policy world wide.
John3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Very clear and straight forward, Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever.

Image123:
i don't care who any of the letters or books are written to. My concern are the contents of the Word and how it affects me. Its similar to listening to the news. What happens even in another country may affect decision and policy world wide.
John3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Very clear and straight forward, Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever.

That is where you miss it, you will end up mixing everything together which eventually leads to confusion-

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You need to rightly divide the word at all times, the epistles are the books mainly for church doctrines. The book of John, Peter , James and the Old Testament books are all books for our learning not for doctrine.

Yes Jesus is the same like God is the same at all times but their programmes are not stagnant but progressive -

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,

This dispensation of grace is totally different from the dispensation of law or of revelation or of conscience.

shdemidemi:

That is where you miss it, you will end up mixing everything together which eventually leads to confusion-

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You need to rightly divide the word at all times, the epistles are the books mainly for church doctrines. The book of John, Peter , James and the Old Testament books are all books for our learning not for doctrine.

Yes Jesus is the same like God is the same at all times but their programmes are not stagnant but progressive -

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,

This dispensation of grace is totally different from the dispensation of law or of revelation or of conscience.

Your criteria is more of divisive than rightly dividing. The apostles wrote at the same dispensation and taught that all are one in Christ. All scripture is profitable, not only paul's epistles.

Image123:
i don't care who any of the letters or books are written to. My concern are the contents of the Word and how it affects me. Its similar to listening to the news. What happens even in another country may affect decision and policy world wide.
John3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Very clear and straight forward, Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever.

you shud rightly interprete the bible so tht u dnt fall into erroneous dogmatism.
A christian can sin and fall into temptation either willingly or by accident tht doesnt automatclly make him a non chrstian. As a matter of fact many chrstians struggle wth sin. Som so called strong christians ar strugglg wth secret sins in private.
If tht verse is taken litetally it wud mean som1 who is really a child of God cannot sin but tht isnt so. If these were so, then a chrstian wnt need frgveness since he wud never commit a sin after he is saved.
Wat tht verse means is a a child of God has God's nature in him and wudnt want /like to sin or b comfrtable with sin because it wud b unnatural to Him because of his new nature but som1 without this God nature in him , will not only feel okay wth sinng but he wud nt b able to avoid sinng because it is his nature lifestyle thought pattern sinning is wat he does naturally hence the wrd sinner. A child of God who is at home with sin has either deadened his conscience (and/or backslidden) or was never really saved.

erroneous dogmatism, what does that mean?

Image123:
Your criteria is more of divisive than rightly dividing. The apostles wrote at the same dispensation and taught that all are one in Christ. All scripture is profitable, not only paul's epistles.

Read your book of Acts and your Galatians , you would realise apostle Paul did not learn His message the same way the rest did. He was not with the rest of the eleven in all those three years but He was given a ministry the rest could not comprehend. Peter James and John did not write to the uncircumcised, their letters were to the Jews scattered all around, Paul had a ministry to the uncircumcised which he got through the risen Christ.

You are right that all scripture is profitable, some for our learning, some for reproof, some correction, some for our learning. Everything in the bible is not for doctrine, thanks.

shdemidemi:

Read your book of Acts and your Galatians , you would realise apostle Paul did not learn His message the same way the rest did. He was not with the rest of the eleven in all those three years but He was given a ministry the rest could not comprehend. Peter James and John did not write to the uncircumcised, their letters were to the Jews scattered all around, Paul had a ministry to the uncircumcised which he got through the risen Christ.

You are right that all scripture is profitable, some for our learning, some for reproof, some correction, some for our learning. Everything in the bible is not for doctrine, thanks.

Who told you that the rest of the apostles or disciples could not comprehend Paul's ministry or message? i understand that most were initially not ready to preach it or obey it, but to say they did not comprehend it is quite ludicrous. Acts 15 talks of a letter written by other apostles to gentiles. Barnabas was also an apostle who preached to the gentiles. All the apostles were given ministry to teach all nations by the risen Jesus. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, says Paul.

Image123:
Who told you that the rest of the apostles or disciples could not comprehend Paul's ministry or message? i understand that most were initially not ready to preach it or obey it, but to say they did not comprehend it is quite ludicrous. Acts 15 talks of a letter written by other apostles to gentiles. Barnabas was also an apostle who preached to the gentiles. All the apostles were given ministry to teach all nations by the risen Jesus. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, says Paul.

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


That clearly state where they still have problems with Paul's gospel. They agreed gentiles have no been called by God, but they believe there as to be restrictions and instructions according to the Jewish Order of doing things. Paul's message is clearly different, with Paul it is Christ plus nothing, with them it is Christ plus tradition. Paul calls Jesus plus tradition 'bondage'.

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

source of the difference is Christ cos Paul was put in the office of the Holy Spirit as a mouthpiece-
Galatians 1:11,12

"But I certify (I guarantee) you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man (in other words, he didn't go to school or seminary some place and learn it). For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the (instruction? No, but rather the) revelation of Jesus Christ."

Paul says that he wasn't taught it, and that's why he's separating himself from the Twelve throughout the first two chapters of Galatians. He wasn't taught it by the Twelve or anyone else, but rather everything that he lays down in his preaching, teaching, and writing, he received by revelation. The Lord revealed these things to Paul in such a way that even when you go on into Galatians Chapter 2, Peter and the eleven couldn't comprehend what Paul was talking about. It was way beyond anything they had ever heard.

shdemidemi:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


That clearly state where they still have problems with Paul's gospel. They agreed gentiles have no been called by God, but they believe there as to be restrictions and instructions according to the Jewish Order of doing things. Paul's message is clearly different, with Paul it is Christ plus nothing, with them it is Christ plus tradition. Paul calls Jesus plus tradition 'bondage'.

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

source of the difference is Christ cos Paul was put in the office of the Holy Spirit as a mouthpiece-
Galatians 1:11,12

"But I certify (I guarantee) you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man (in other words, he didn't go to school or seminary some place and learn it). For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the (instruction? No, but rather the) revelation of Jesus Christ."

Paul says that he wasn't taught it, and that's why he's separating himself from the Twelve throughout the first two chapters of Galatians. He wasn't taught it by the Twelve or anyone else, but rather everything that he lays down in his preaching, teaching, and writing, he received by revelation. The Lord revealed these things to Paul in such a way that even when you go on into Galatians Chapter 2, Peter and the eleven couldn't comprehend what Paul was talking about. It was way beyond anything they had ever heard.

The apostles had no problem with Paul and his teaching and ministry. Their letter was approved by the Holy Ghost Himself. All the apostles messages were the same albeit different vessels. No one was supposed, expected, or encouraged to trust in tradition either jew or gentile. All the apostles had their messages from Christ. Jesus said of Peter "flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, it was God".
Again, there is no scripture that says that anybody did not comprehend. That one is your own self made assumption.

Image123:
The apostles had no problem with Paul and his teaching and ministry. Their letter was approved by the Holy Ghost Himself. All the apostles messages were the same albeit different vessels. No one was supposed, expected, or encouraged to trust in tradition either jew or gentile. All the apostles had their messages from Christ. Jesus said of Peter "flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, it was God".

Like I usually say, the scripture is a progressive revelation, if you don't catch up with God's programme, you might believe in vain.
This reminds me of a man called Apollos-
Acts 18:24
"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria (in Egypt), an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus."

Remember there is not a New Testament yet. So what Scripture was Apollos mighty in? The Old Testament. This Jewish fellow comes from the area of Alexandria, Egypt. He was eloquent, what we would call a silver-tongued orator.

Acts 18:25

"This man (Apollos, a Jew) was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

In other words, Apollos knew nothing of believing for salvation in Christ's death, burial, and Resurrection. He was still back in Christ's earthly ministry. That is the way he had been instructed.

Acts 18:26

"And he (Apollos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard (they sat and listened to him), they took him unto them (probably took him home for dinner after the service), and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly (or more completely)."

Aquila and priscilla updated this man from what they themselves have been taught Acts 18:1-2 Paul had been with them to expound to them as well.

Acts 18:27-28
And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; 28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

He became aware of this gospel of grace and he refuted the Jews publicly.

Similarly, Peter knew Christ is the son of God, yes, Is that enough? Of course not. Fresh revelations came after that cos Christ died, he was buried and he appeared to the disciples to give them a fresh gospel aside just being the son of God. So, Peter knew a thing or two about the significance of the death, burial and resurrection but the full mystery therein was later revealed to Paul. After so much debate in the book of Galatians where Paul met with Peter and the rest, they reached a conclusion-
Gal 2
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter.

What was there conclusion again? The gospel for the Gentiles/ uncircumcised was committed to one man. We can clearly see there is a gospel to the circumcised and a gospel to the uncircumcised. God is definitely behind the two gospels, one gospel is of grace to the church (by faith alone) and the other gospel is of promise to the Jews(faith plus Jewish order).

Image123: Again, there is no scripture that says that anybody did not comprehend. That one is your own self made assumption.

6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

To whom do you think Paul was referring here? the people held the earthly disciples high. Paul would then say in Corinthians

22 They are Hebrews? So am I! They are Israelites? So am I! They are descendants of Abraham? So am I!
23 Are they [ministering] servants of Christ (the Messiah)? I am talking like one beside himself, [but] I am more, with far more extensive and abundant labors, with far more imprisonments, [beaten] with countless stripes, and frequently [at the point of] death.

10 But by the grace (the unmerited favor and blessing) of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not [found to be] for nothing (fruitless and without effect). In fact, I worked harder than all of them [the apostles], though it was not really I, but the grace (the unmerited favor and blessing) of God which was with me.

See the people he was talking about

9 And when they knew (perceived, recognized, understood, and acknowledged) the grace (God’s unmerited favor and spiritual blessing) that had been bestowed upon me, [b]James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars of the Jerusalem churc[/b]h, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, with the understanding that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Jews).

That was the agreement but till date, the church still suffer from the gospel to the circumcised cos the jews still secretly come to the church to make them feel like they had to still obey some mosaic laws.
4 [My precaution was] because of false brethren who had been secretly smuggled in [to the Christian brotherhood]; they had slipped in to spy on our liberty and the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might again bring us into bondage [under the Law of Moses]

Paul would then go to the next chapter to scream at this church.

^
all you've written above do not in anyway justify my two major queries to you.
1. The apostles had no problem with Paul and his teachings.
2. There is no scripture that says that anybody did not comprehend Paul.
i already said and know that most of the apostles were unwilling to do Paul's work, not that they were ignorant of it. Jesus sent them first, its when they were hesitant that He gave Paul who was willing and did not even seek any flesh and blood approval.

Image123: ^
all you've written above do not in anyway justify my two major queries to you.
1. The apostles had no problem with Paul and his teachings.
2. There is no scripture that says that anybody did not comprehend Paul.
i already said and know that most of the apostles were unwilling to do Paul's work, not that they were ignorant of it. Jesus sent them first, its when they were hesitant that He gave Paul who was willing and did not even seek any flesh and blood approval.

The only way you can understand the difference is if you can explain the difference in the pre-tribulation rapture as described by Paul in Thessaolonians and the post-tribulation coming described by Zechariah's prophesy.

shdemidemi:

The only way you can understand the difference is if you can explain the difference in the pre-tribulation rapture as described by Paul in Thessaolonians and the post-tribulation coming described by Zechariah's prophesy.

you're on your own on this one oh.

Image123:
you're on your own on this one oh.

But the bible says it, I guess you prefer to be in darkness about the issue

shdemidemi: But the bible says it, I guess you prefer to be in darkness about the issue

We're talking about understanding Paul and what scriptures teach on moral behavior, you are trying to get us to discuss rapture and tribulation instead. It does not add up, you're on your own.

Image123:
We're talking about understanding Paul and what scriptures teach on moral behavior, you are trying to get us to discuss rapture and tribulation instead. It does not add up, you're on your own.

I am not discussing rapture par se. All I am saying is Paul's gospel to the gentiles is of faith alone and to the church but Peter's gospel is to the Jewish believers plus jewish order.

Gal 2:8 For He Who motivated and fitted Peter and worked effectively through him for the mission to the circumcised, motivated and fitted me and worked through me also for [the mission to] the Gentiles.

The two separate messages explain the two different coming of Christ like I said earlier