God doesn't take people through plane crash...regardless of your epistle OP.

And if God wanted to take him....and maybe with his wife ....not along with seven other 'innocent' people!

sholay2011:
God doesn't take people through plane crash...regardless of your epistle OP.

And if God wanted to take him....and maybe with his wife ....not along with seven other 'innocent' people!

The Owner does what the Owner needs to do... regardless of anyone or anything

"Taking out" is inevitable. It is unavoidable at this side of eternity

So is it the tragic death of Myles Munroe & Co you've just realised 'innocent' people's loss of life?
Is it recently you've only noticed 'innocent' people's loss of life
- e.g. loss of life of 'innocent' people like Jesus Christ, Abel, John the Baptist, stillborns etcetera

@babagnoni

Do you agree with Mike Munroe that the words of Jesus are greater than that of paul?

Do you agree that all paul wrote in the epistles were mere letters and should be read as such?

Do you also agree that the preaching of the Kingdom of heaven is for the present church?

I have more questions but I will prefer to keep them for now and I will also appreciate if we deal with each question thoroughly before going to the next.

sholay2011:
God doesn't take people through plane crash...regardless of your epistle OP.

And if God wanted to take him....and maybe with his wife ....not along with seven other 'innocent' people!

Did God tell you how He would take His people?

Please check how all but one of the disciples died and check how the earliest followers of Christ died, take Stephen, Timothy, Paul and check John the baptist and Jesus. I am sure you will not like such gruesome deaths either, would you?

Your idea of God preempting heresy bi killing Munroe is not logical either.
1.Why did He allow Islam a false religion to flourish?
2. DO we have false religions/doctrines and their proponents alive today?
3. Did God forget to take them out?

MaziOmenuko:


So since we can't find another logical cause of the plane crash, we should subscribe to the theory that his 'anti' gospel message made God to take him away before the message goes viral?

Very enlightening.

I just did.
Let's think through what he is saying.
If I told you that 1970 years ago in Palestine a man was crucified and he died a few hours later only to resurrect less than 36 hours later, how much sense would that make?
I'd have to explain to you that we have all sinned against God and He sent somebody to pay the penalty for our sins.......
I believe this is what Munroe was talking about; CONTEXT of the birth,life,death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Lack of context is why Greeks found the message of the cross foolish. They could not reconcile the idea of a god killed by men and so forth. I have seen Muslims pondering how God could die right here on NL

OLAADEGBU:


Check it out here: --> https://www.nairaland.com/1992746/late-dr-munroe-taught-jesus

shdemidemi:
@babagnoni

Do you agree with Mike Munroe that the words of Jesus are greater than that of paul?

Do you agree that all paul wrote in the epistles were mere letters and should be read as such?

Do you also agree that the preaching of the Kingdom of heaven is for the present church?

I have more questions but I will prefer to keep them for now and I will also appreciate if we deal with each question thoroughly before going to the next.

Do you agree with Mike Munroe that the words of Jesus are greater than that of paul?
I don't know any Mike Munroe nor familiar with any work, writing or words of Mike Munroe.
- I could be wrong but if you were really familiar with Myles Munroe's works, you wouldn't make a slip of his first name.

The words of Jesus are greater than that of Paul (i.e. Isaiah 55:11, Matthew 24:35, Luke 21:33 etcetera)

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
- Isaiah 55:11 ESV

shdemidemi would you agree that Jesus never made opinions, but some of Paul's words, he admits were opinions

Do you agree that all paul wrote in the epistles were mere letters and should be read as such?
Epistles are letters so the affirmative answer is, all Paul wrote were epistles (i.e. letters), and they should be read as such.
Mind you, these letters were written and sent to intended or specific churches
The contents of the letters were:
1) About him preaching the Kingdom
2) About him settling wranglings
3) About him, giving advices, expressing a view on ongoing issues within the church or judgement formed about something
and where applicable he ALWAYS clearly states it is his opinion and not necessarily God's

So Paul's letter should be read with intent to make informed choices
- informed decisions are readily made when reading Paul's letters

Do you also agree that the preaching of the Kingdom of heaven is for the present church?
This seems like an ambiguous question but will attempt proffering an answer(s) nonetheless
The preaching and by default, the proclaiming, the teaching and by default, the explaining of the Kingdom of Heaven is for the "church", (i.e. the "church" even to the end of the age)

This is on the condition that you continue in faith without being moved from the solid foundation of the hope that the Good News contains.
You've heard this Good News of which I, Paul, became a servant. It has been spread throughout all creation under heaven.
- Colossians 1:23 GOD'S WORD® Translation

Then He said to them,
"Go the whole world over, and proclaim the Good News to all mankind.
- Mark 16:15 Weymouth New Testament

The gospel, which Jesus proclaimed and explained to the multitude was about the Happy News of Kingdom of Heaven
- The priority of everyone, is first to seek the Kingdom of Heaven

I have more questions but I will prefer to keep them for now and I will also appreciate if we deal with each question thoroughly before going to the next
My sentiments exactly

BabaGnoni:


Do you agree with Mike Munroe that the words of Jesus are greater than that of paul?
I don't know any Mike Munroe nor familiar with any work, writing or words of Mike Munroe.

[size=4pt]Do you agree that all paul wrote in the epistles were mere letters and should be read as such?
Epistles are letters so the affirmative answer is, all Paul wrote were epistles (i.e. letters), and they should be read as such.
Mind you, these letters were written and sent to intended or specific churches
The contents of the letters were:
1) About him preaching the Kingdom
2) About him settling wranglings
3) About him, giving advices, expressing a view on ongoing issues within the church or judgement formed about something
and where applicable he ALWAYS clearly states it is his opinion and not necessarily God's

So Paul's letter should be read with intent to make informed choices
- informed decisions are readily made when reading Paul's letters

Do you also agree that the preaching of the Kingdom of heaven is for the present church?
This seems like an ambiguous question but will attempt proffering an answer(s) nonetheless
The preaching and by default, the proclaiming, the teaching and by default, the explaining of the Kingdom of Heaven is for the "church", (i.e. the "church" even to the end of the age)

This is on the condition that you continue in faith without being moved from the solid foundation of the hope that the Good News contains.
You've heard this Good News of which I, Paul, became a servant. It has been spread throughout all creation under heaven.
- Colossians 1:23 GOD'S WORD® Translation

Then He said to them,
"Go the whole world over, and proclaim the Good News to all mankind.
- Mark 16:15 Weymouth New Testament

The gospel, which Jesus proclaimed and explained to the multitude was about the Happy News of Kingdom of Heaven
- The priority of everyone is first to seek the Kingdom of Heaven

I have more questions but I will prefer to keep them for now and I will also appreciate if we deal with each question thoroughly before going to the next
My sentiments exactly[/size]

BabaGnoni:


Do you agree with Mike Munroe that the words of Jesus are greater than that of paul?
I don't know any Mike Munroe nor familiar with any work, writing or words of Mike Munroe.
- I could be wrong but if you were really familiar with Myles Munroe's works, you wouldn't make a slip of his first name.

You are actually right, I was not familiar with his teachings or works before the news of his sudden death. However, I have seen videos of his lectures pasted here and on more on youtube.

BabaGnoni:

The words of Jesus are greater than that of Paul (i.e. Isaiah 55:11, Matthew 24:35, Luke 21:33 etcetera)

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
- Isaiah 55:11 ESV

1)I did not see any comparisons to come to the conclusion that one was higher than the other.

2) Did Paul speak his own words or were they also the words of risen Christ/ Spirit?

vooks:

Very funny indeed , I laughed when I saw it too. But I beg you not to make this a 'you/them against me/us' debate as we can all learn from each other.

BabaGnoni:


shdemidemi would you agree that Jesus never made opinions, but some of Paul's words, he admits were opinions

This statement could be true, so I have no qualms whatsoever with it.

Is it possible that Paul would infer anything he didn't learn or that was not inspired by the risen Christ Himself.

After all, Paul said he was taught what he was teaching by no man but by Christ Himself.

shdemidemi:
You are actually right, I was not familiar with his teachings or works before the news of his sudden death. However, I have seen videos of his lectures pasted here and on more on youtube.

You dear sir have just gone up a notch in my respect of you
- I am aware a few of us, aren't totally familiar with Myles Munroe's works, some were alienated by the WoF affiliation or put off by his seemingly braggadocio display of knowledge or information.

shdemidemi:
1) I did not see any comparisons to come to the conclusion that one was higher than the other

The comparison is that Paul's words like yours and mine can go out from the mouth, can return back empty, not accomplishing that which it was purposed, and thus not succeeding in the thing for which it was sent.
This concludes that Paul's words like yours and mine if not within the allowable limit is not on the same par of Jesus' words
- Jesus' word is Supreme, not Paul's, yours or mine

shdemidemi:
2) Did Paul speak his own words or were they also the words of risen Christ/ Spirit?

Paul did both
(i.e. said by his own admittance, he spoke his own words and also on other occasions, he emphatically spoke the words of risen Christ)
- he always makes the distinction when and/or where he is speaking his words or the words of the risen Jesus Christ

BabaGnoni:

Do you agree that all paul wrote in the epistles were mere letters and should be read as such?
Epistles are letters so the affirmative answer is, all Paul wrote were epistles (i.e. letters), and they should be read as such.
Mind you, these letters were written and sent to intended or specific churches
The contents of the letters were:
1) About him preaching the Kingdom

So Paul's letter should be read with intent to make informed choices
- informed decisions are readily made when reading Paul's letters

Paul's epistles were definitely letters but can we say it was only for that particular church that it was addressed to or should we see them as generic messages to the entire body of Christ?

Paul said this in one of such letters-

1 cor 1
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, [size=20pt]with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:[/size]

BabaGnoni:
1) About him preaching the Kingdom

A kingdom gives a picture of a place with a king and his subjects.

Where exactly in all of Paul's teaching or letters did he teach Jesus as the king of the church. Rather he taught that every member is a part of the body of Christ.

Jesus preached about a kingdom quite alright but did that ever involve non-jews?

BabaGnoni:

2) About him settling wranglings
3) About him, giving advices, expressing a view on ongoing issues within the church or judgement formed about something
and where applicable he ALWAYS clearly states it is his opinion and not necessarily God's

I believe the letters covered issues well beyond wranglings and personal opinions. The letter explained, expanded on all what Jesus was unable to say clearly. Jesus said
John 16
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.


Paul taught us how to be saved, the actual meaning of baptism, the ministry of the Spirit, Grace, Charity, Faith, Hope , doctrine of election, doctrine of propitiation, how the church should run- Order and many more.

Should all of these things be mitigated?

shdemidemi:
This statement could be true, so I have no qualms whatsoever with it.

Is it possible that Paul would infer anything he didn't learn or that was not inspired by the risen Christ Himself.

After all, Paul said he was taught what he was teaching by no man but by Christ Himself.

This statement could be true that, it is "possible that Paul would infer anything he didn't learn or that was not inspired by the risen Christ Himself"

After all, Paul not only taught and explained things but also had opinions like you and I have
- these opinons were not necessarily based on fact, knowledge or teachings. Some will call it, as it were, gut reaction or reasoning

BabaGnoni:


You dear sir have just gone up a notch in my respect of you
- I am aware a few of us, aren't totally familiar with Myles Munroe's works, some were alienated by the WoF affiliation or put off by his seemingly braggadocio display of knowledge or information.

Good to know. You remain one of the people I really enjoy to read on the forum. Thanks

BabaGnoni:

The comparison is that Paul's words like yours and mine can go out from the mouth, can return back empty, not accomplishing that which it was purposed, and thus not succeeding in the thing for which it was sent.
This concludes that Paul's words like yours and mine if not within the allowable limit is not on the same par of Jesus' words
- Jesus' word is Supreme, not Paul's, yours or mine

If I may ask, whose word is greater- the father (God) or the son (God)?

BabaGnoni:


This statement could be true that, it is "possible that Paul would infer anything he didn't learn or that was not inspired by the risen Christ Himself"

After all, Paul not only taught and explained things but also had opinions like you and I have
- these opinons were not necessarily based on fact, knowledge or teachings. Some will call it, as it were, gut reaction or reasoning

Could it then be that we have some things we have been told to do by Paul in the scripture are 'man' (natural man) concocted?

If you say yes to this, it will then mean that 2 Tim 3:16 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness) isn't completely correct.

I believe anything that is not from God is from the devil. That explains why Jesus called Peter a devil even as a believer.

shdemidemi:
Paul's epistles were definitely letters
but can we say it was only for that particular church that it was addressed to
or should we see them as generic messages to the entire body of Christ?

Paul said this in one of such letters-

1 cor 1
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, [size=20pt]with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:[/size]

Epistle is a letter, let's move on and not wear the words epistle or letter thin
Both; "for that particular church that it was addressed to or see them as generic messages to the entire body of Christ"

shdemidemi:
A kingdom gives a picture of a place with a king and his subjects.

Where exactly in all of Paul's teaching or letters did he teach Jesus as the king of the church.
Rather he taught that every member is a part of the body of Christ.

Jesus preached about a kingdom quite alright but did that ever involve non-jews?

True, "a kingdom gives a picture of a place with a king and his subjects", it sure does and that was the gospel Jesus Christ was preaching and teaching

I don't know as Jesus is not "the king of the church"
I am yet to find it anywhere in the bible that he is or in "Paul's teaching or letters" that Jesus is "the king of the church"

Paul sure taught that every member is a part of the body of Christ (i.e. a citizen or member of ther Kingdom of Goid or Heaven)

Yes, it did ever involve non-Jews
The multitude Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven to were not all Jews

shdemidemi:
I believe the letters covered issues well beyond wranglings and personal opinions.
The letter explained, expanded on all what Jesus was unable to say clearly. Jesus said
John 16
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.


Paul taught us how to be saved, the actual meaning of baptism, the ministry of the Spirit, Grace, Charity, Faith, Hope , doctrine of election, doctrine of propitiation, how the church should run - Order and many more.

Should all of these things be mitigated?

We are on the same page, however just as Jesus taught the original 12 Apostles, so Jesus gave Paul an accelerated teaching or he received downloaded information similar to what Adam had in Eden.
Having said that the fact remains that Paul just like every other man (i.e. you and I) had opinions
- opinions, not necessarily based on facts, teachings or knowledge

shdemidemi, no one is suggesting that Paul is not trustworthy but he, Paul, isnt infallible or is he?
- not that I find any flaw(s) in Paul's teaching

shdemidemi:
Good to know.
You remain one of the people I really enjoy to read on the forum. Thanks

I could easily say the same about you, you just like Myles Munroe and others have or had helped.
You don't know this but you accidentally helped me in figuring out a particularly baffling mystery in the bible

shdemidemi:
If I may ask, whose word is greater - the father (God) or the son (God)?

shdemidemi sire, trick question? LOL
Let's make an educated guess based on John 12:49

I have not spoken on my own. Instead, the Father who sent me told me what I should say and how I should say it.
- John 12:49 GOD'S WORD® Translation

Myles Munroe: "That's why angel's need our permission to function. It says they are here to do our bidding. They can't even act without our permission, you see. (But, here's the bigger statement Even God Himself is illegal on earth. Why? Because, He is a spirit and the law He set up by His own mouth was that only spirits with bodies can function on earth legally.

Myles Munroe
"Let me define prayer for you in this show. Prayer is man giving God permission or license to interfere in earth's affairs. In other words, prayer is earthly license for heavenly interference."

Myles Munroe
"Heaven depends on earth for interference. If He [God] could just find two people like you [Benny Hinn] and I to agree. We agree for God to do this thing. Then God says, 'Thank you very much for permission!'

Myles Munroe
"Our prayer is a strange experience. We normally ask God to do things, God is telling us to command Him permission to do it for us."

Sinc when God need permission that he can do something for us!

shdemidemi:
Could it then be that we have some things we have been told to do by Paul in the scripture are 'man' (natural man) concocted?

It is true "We have some things we have been told to do by Paul in the scripture are 'man' (natural man) concocted"

shdemidemi:
If you say yes to this, it will then mean that 2 Tim 3:16 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness) isn't completely correct.

2 Tim 3:16 is as solid as a rock, there is nothing untoward in it. It is completely correct

shdemidemi:
I believe anything that is not from God is from the devil. That explains why Jesus called Peter a devil even as a believer.

I couldn't agree more to this

BabaGnoni:


True, "a kingdom gives a picture of a place with a king and his subjects", it sure does and that was the gospel Jesus Christ was preaching and teaching

The multitude Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven to were not all Jews

How then do we explain what Jesus told his disciples when they were commissioned to go preach the gospel of the kingdom.
Matthew 10
5 Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with these instructions: "Don't go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans,

BabaGnoni:

shdemidemi, no one is suggesting that Paul is not trustworthy but he, Paul, isnt infallible or is he?
- not that I find any flaw(s) in Paul's teaching

Paul alluded to the fact that he was fallible, but not once did he have any doubt about what he presented to the church about Christ or His assembly. The bible never gave an inkling of such idea too, rather what the bible says is -

1 Corinthians 11 King James Version (KJV)

11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

#1 Myles Munroe:
"That's why angel's need our permission to function. It says they are here to do our bidding. They can't even act without our permission, you see. (But, here's the bigger statement smiley Even God Himself is illegal on earth. Why? Because, He is a spirit and the law He set up by His own mouth was that only spirits with bodies can function on earth legally.

#2 Myles Munroe
"Let me define prayer for you in this show. Prayer is man giving God permission or license to interfere in earth's affairs. In other words, prayer is earthly license for heavenly interference."

#3 Myles Munroe
"Heaven depends on earth for interference. If He [God] could just find two people like you [Benny Hinn] and I to agree. We agree for God to do this thing. Then God says, 'Thank you very much for permission!'

#4 Myles Munroe
"Our prayer is a strange experience. We normally ask God to do things, God is telling us to command Him permission to do it for us."

On #1, Myles Munroe is correct, also see the Mary example following below
On #2, Myles Munroe is correct
On #3, Myles Munroe, not sure of this one about Benny Hinn, so Myles Munroe is on his own on this one, however anything within the confines of the rules He laid down or algorithm He had written, is game, as far as God is concerned

On #4, Myles Munroe is correct, just like here on nairaland forum, we normally want the website owner do things for us, the website owner will do things or make this happen for you, when you click the right button, prompt etcetera

nora544:
Since when God need permission that he can do something for us!

nora544, an example is Mary
Mary said "Let it be, according to they word." That means, she gave her permission.
- She submitted to God's will

shdemidemi:
How then do we explain what Jesus told his disciples when they were commissioned to go preach the gospel of the kingdom.
Matthew 10
5 Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with these instructions: "Don't go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans,

The fact remains shdemidemi, that Jesus undeniably preached the good news of the Kingdom of Gid or Heaven to the multitude.

Please shdemidemi don't do this, you know that Jesus after His resurrection sent the rest of the disciples to all nations
- each directive Jesus gave had its own timing for its own purpose (i.e. specific instructions to His disciples according to a particular time and circumstance)

shdemidemi:
Paul alluded to the fact that he was fallible, but not once did he have any doubt about what he presented to the church about Christ or His assembly. The bible never gave an inkling of such idea too, rather what the bible says is -

1 Corinthians 11 King James Version (KJV)

11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Whenever Paul had any doubt or reservations, he ALWAYS says this is my opinion on the issue or this is my standing on this matter

@ BabaGnoni

I understand Myles Munroe association with WoF and I think it is that association that led him to eventually teach a false gospel.

I agreed with the OP but refuse to agree that Munroe was a fellow soldier; I am convinced he was a false prophet who taught a false doctrine. Case in point:

OLAADEGBU:
[b]“Jesus is not the gospel,” he stated in a sermon entitled “The Gospel of the Kingdom,” the entirety of which is posted below. “Jesus preached the gospel of the Kingdom. He did not preach Himself. … The good news is the Kingdom, not Jesus.”

“[T]he gospel is not you must be born again,” Monroe also asserted. “Jesus never preached [being] born again; as a matter of fact, he only mentioned born again once in the entire four gospels. … And he only mentioned it to an old man at three o’clock in the night who woke him up.”

He contended that Christians should rather appeal to the lost by primarily telling them about the benefits Christ offers in His Kingdom as he stated that Jesus was simply a means to an end.

“Do you know why the people on your job really hate Christians right now? Because you are preaching to them Jesus Christ,” Monroe said. “You don’t [need to] be talking about blood and nails and the spear in His side, because that’s not what you’re supposed to be talking about. You’ve got to be talking about how to solve people’s problems. … People aren’t worried about no blood on no cross. They’re worried about how they’re going to make it through the day.”

Despite outrage over Monroe’s comments, those who characterized Monroe as a false teacher are saddened by his passing and ask that others be considerate and not insensitive during this time.

Jesus only the Christian gospel.

The fact that Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom was more in keeping of his humanity not exalting himself; same way as he was God but did not proclaim himself as one. That the name Jesus offends a few should not make us edit it out. The fact that that name offends is proof that you are preaching the gospel because the gospel will offend men. The moment you remove the offence, you are no longer preaching the gospel.

I said all that to point out that the above statement of Munroe is a true summary of his messages. His messages on motivation, leadership and self help is adapting the gospel to fit human acceptance. This is false teaching, sir. We are not permitted as Christian ministers to do so except ofcourse you are WOF. I understand your soft spot for him having learnt a bit from him. I wouldn't have trouble with Munroe messages if he had made it clear that what he taught was not Christian. But for a man to lead a church, associate with Christians, call himself Christian and the inaugurate a message removing the Chtistian icon, Jesus, is wrong.

My biggest supporter of ministry is a Leadership Expert. I support him also and even try to attend his seminars but I have made it clear to him that what he teaches are not Christian principles. Just as a Maths teacher is not teaching Christian principles, he is teaching Maths. Munroe taught Motivation, Leadership and Self Help. He did not teach the gospel. And his effort to edit the name Jesus from the gospel to legitimize his own message renders the messages he preached a false doctrine.

I am sure there are things to learn from him but those things will certainly not be Christian.

WinsomeX:
@ BabaGnoni

I understand Myles Munroe association with WoF and I think it is that association that led him to eventually teach a false gospel.

I agreed with the OP but refuse to agree that Munroe was a fellow soldier; I am convinced he was a false prophet who taught a false doctrine. Case in point:

Jesus only the Christian gospel.

The fact that Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom was more in keeping of his humanity not exalting himself; same way as he was God but did not proclaim himself as one. That the name Jesus offends a few should not make us edit it out. The fact that that name offends is proof that you are preaching the gospel because the gospel will offend men. The moment you remove the offence, you are no longer preaching the gospel.

Jesus is not only the Christian gospel. Jesus is part of the God gospel

God was being sensitive and mindful of their sensibilities.
Here are a people that revere God's name so much, that even up to today or the present time, they won't or are unable to pronounce God's name or write it down - they use substitutes for the name of God
This is why Jesus was so thoughtful as not to reveal He was God or outrightly proclaim Himself as one (i.e. not proclaim Himself as God) should in case they go berserk or out of control with anger with such statement

The fact that Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom has nothing to do with keeping of his humanity and not exalting himself but rather that no savvy business owner makes advertisements about the entrance to the business place first.
We don't see Shoprite Supermarket make adverts about the entrances or doors to their store but it rather is about the business, itself - Shoprite Supermarket

The same applies to the Father's business, the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God. The advertisements are all about the Kingdom of God
and not the entrance-Jesus or door-Jesus into the Kingdom of God business premises
- we come into the Kingdom of God business premise obviously it is going to be through the Door, which is Jesus, in essence the Kingdom of God business premise comes first in the order of things and not the other way round, as with Kingdom of God business premise door first

WinsomeX:
I said all that to point out that the above statement of Munroe is a true summary of his messages. His messages on motivation, leadership and self help is adapting the gospel to fit human acceptance. This is false teaching, sir. We are not permitted as Christian ministers to do so except of course you are WOF. I understand your soft spot for him having learnt a bit from him. I wouldn't have trouble with Munroe messages if he had made it clear that what he taught was not Christian. But for a man to lead a church, associate with Christians, call himself Christian and the inaugurate a message removing the Chtistian icon, Jesus, is wrong.

My biggest supporter of ministry is a Leadership Expert. I support him also and even try to attend his seminars but I have made it clear to him that what he teaches are not Christian principles. Just as a Maths teacher is not teaching Christian principles, he is teaching Maths. Munroe taught Motivation, Leadership and Self Help. He did not teach the gospel. And his effort to edit the name Jesus from the gospel to legitimize his own message renders the messages he preached a false doctrine.

I am sure there are things to learn from him but those things will certainly not be Christian.

Myles Munroe never classed or called his "Motivation, Leadership and Self Help" teachings or enterprises, the gospel.

We all until we threw away or dropped them, had to a certain degree elements of WoF indoctrination baggages we carried about, and Myles Munroe not doubt has his fair share before going to a Oral Roberts WoF university

I have no "soft spot" perse for Myles Munroe or hold any allegiance to him except that the truth be told and acknowledged about his teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven and the order of which the gospel should be presented to all nations

I have never and wasn't at any time interested in Myles Munroe's "Motivation, Leadership and Self Help" teachings or enterprises
My main and only interest was the eye-opening teachings and explanations of the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God
- I see no one teach and explain it easily and well the way he did

Contrary to public perception, Myles Munroe was not ashamed of the name of Jesus nor offended by the name of Jesus.
Myles Munroe wasn't even removing Jesus or removing the name of Jesus from the Gospel.

He wasn't by any chance diminishing Jesus either rather Myles Munroe was sentising the "church" to the first love of Jesus, which was preaching the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God.
When this is preached, when asked how does one enter the Kingdom, then one points to the Door, Jesus, saying, one enters the Kingdom through that Door, which is Jesus.

We don't stop at the Door, but we enter through the Door into the Kingdom and start to enjoy the privileges of and the benefits available for being a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God

I am sure these are such of the things to learn from Myles Munroe and those things certainly are Christian

nora544, previously posted some quotes made by Myles Munroe, we all know these are mostly true and are kid gloves quotes when compared to the bizarre sounding quotes we all are familiar with among prominent or heavyweight WoFaithers

As for Myles Munroe's capers, that will be for God or "America" to know
- maybe next year, two years time, five years or ten years time, we can talk about them

@babag

Do you realise there is a difference between a 'kingdom of God' and a 'kingdom of heaven'?

shdemidemi:
@babag

Do you realise there is a difference between a 'kingdom of God' and a 'kingdom of heaven'?

shdemidemi you're back from the grocery run with the family? LOL

What have you got up your sleeves now, darting on to 'kingdom of God' and a 'kingdom of heaven'
- hope nothing mischievous

This is heavy stuff you've just asked (i.e. tough muscle meat)

They are two different things, there is a difference but notice, at this level, I used them interchangeably

and of course, Jesus never said the kingdom of heaven is within you but rather He used 'kingdom of God'

Also I bet you're familiar with the domain (i.e. kingdom) and mandate given to Adam (i.e. have dominion over...

BabaGnoni:

shdemidemi you're back from the grocery run with the family? LOL

Lol.. If you don't pass for a white garment seer, I wonder who would.

BabaGnoni:

What have you got up your sleeves now, darting on to 'kingdom of God' and a 'kingdom of heaven'
- hope nothing mischievous

This is heavy stuff you've just asked (i.e. tough muscle meat)

They are two different things, there is a difference but notice, at this level, I used them interchangeably

and of course, Jesus never said the kingdom of heaven is within you but rather He used 'kingdom of God'

Also I bet you're familiar with the domain (i.e. kingdom) and mandate given to Adam (i.e. have dominion over...

why I believe myles is wrong with that message

John the Baptist yearned continuously directly to the nation of Israel. His message was specifically of a kingdom that was to be started by the arrival of a king. The king was born quite alright. He began his ministry at the age of 30.

He appointed disciples who heralded a message to Israelites about who jesus really is- the son of God. If the nation agreed and accepted jesus as the son of God, the kingdom would have started and jesus would have ruled over the nation.

As we all know now through scriptures, they rejected their king. Jesus resigned to talking to the people in parable and at this point the ax was set under the tree. Jesus was ready to cut down the nation.

All his parables gave inklings about these things and at some point, even the representatives of the people of Israel understood what Jesus was insinuating.

After His passion, Peter asked a very important question about this kingdom that was abruptly cut short.

Acts 1
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

This kingdom was specifically for Israel and Peter wanted to know if it will be returned even after what they had done as a nation. Jesus understood this question and he replied saying 'it is not for you to know'.

At this point Jesus extended the reach as he commissioned the disciples to take the gospel (no more a kingdom gospel) of his death and ascension further than the nation of Israel but to the uttermost part of the earth.

@ topic

the time/s you dont display mourning is in the event of a calamity which is still to claim many more.


either that or there was no (emotional) connection to the late.

just my thoughts, in the sense of all things not being equal (ie when the situation is not normal).

shdemidemi:
Lol.. If you don't pass for a white garment seer, I wonder who would.

After your hiatus, I just put two and two together to draw up that conclusion

shdemidemi:
why I believe myles is wrong with that message

John the Baptist yearned continuously directly to the nation of Israel. His message was specifically of a kingdom that was to be started by the arrival of a king. The king was born quite alright. He began his ministry at the age of 30.

He appointed disciples who heralded a message to Israelites about who jesus really is- the son of God. If the nation agreed and accepted jesus as the son of God, the kingdom would have started and jesus would have ruled over the nation.

As we all know now through scriptures, they rejected their king. Jesus resigned to talking to the people in parable and at this point the ax was set under the tree. Jesus was ready to cut down the nation.

All his parables gave inklings about these things and at some point, even the representatives of the people of Israel understood what Jesus was insinuating.

After His passion, Peter asked a very important question about this kingdom that was abruptly cut short.

Acts 1
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

This kingdom was specifically for Israel and Peter wanted to know if it will be returned even after what they had done as a nation. Jesus understood this question and he replied saying 'it is not for you to know'.

At this point Jesus extended the reach as he commissioned the disciples to take the gospel (no more a kingdom gospel) of his death and ascension further than the nation of Israel but to the uttermost part of the earth.

Myles Munro is right about the Kingdom message

but hang on did you post what followed after "why I believe myles is wrong with that message"?
Or is the post a victim of hacking or highjacking?

Apart from the absurdness in the post, please note no offense meant, there are too many obvious or gaping holes in it
- the take in the post is how Judas made his boo-boo, thinking Jesus came to be a King

Also the post is trying to corral one into a tedious and wearisome exposition, a route, I don't now want to embark on

shdemidemi, kingdom is original, it started with the OUTPOST in Eden (i.e. with Adam). It is not a new thing, actually we are coming full circle back to how it originally was

BabaGnoni:


Myles Munro is right about the Kingdom message

but hang on did you post what followed after "why I believe myles is wrong with that message"?
Or is the post a victim of hacking or highjacking?

Apart from the absurdness in the post, please note no offense meant, there are too many obvious or gaping holes in it
- the take in the post is how Judas made his boo-boo, thinking Jesus came to be a King

Also the post is trying to corral one into a tedious and wearisome exposition, a route, I don't now want to embark on

Ok

BabaGnoni:

shdemidemi, kingdom is original, it started with the OUTPOST in Eden (i.e. with Adam). It is not a new thing, actually we are coming full circle back to how it originally was

Where Adam and Eve was, popularly known as the garden of Eden was on earth, wasn't it? It was the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus will also be coming back to earth to rule according to the prophetic books. The bible makes it clear that He would not be coming all alone but He would be coming with saints (christians) that have been raptured to set up a kingdom with the jews that will survive the Great Tribulation On earth. Agree?

shdemidemi:
Where Adam and Eve was, popularly known as the garden of Eden was on earth, wasn't it?
It was the kingdom of heaven.

Yes it was on earth, and no, it wasn't the kingdom of heaven.

I said and called it an OUTPOST

You remember Lord Frederick Lugard, don't you?
You know who he was and what he represented in Nigeria?
You know his title or office?
If yes, well then, Adam was a Lord Frederick Lugard like and Eden was his Nigeria equivalent

I guess you can suss out the rest with those clues

shdemidemi:
Jesus will also be coming back to earth to rule according to the prophetic books.
The bible makes it clear that He would not be coming all alone but He would be coming with saints (christians) that have been raptured to set up a kingdom with the jews that will survive the Great Tribulation On earth. Agree?

God has always been in the kingdom business. This from Eden, at some time with the Israelites and like you said "Jesus will also be coming back to earth to rule according to the prophetic books"

"Do everything they say to you," the LORD replied,
"for it is me they are rejecting, not you.
They don't want me to be their king any longer."
- 1 Samuel 8:7 NLT

It is not just today the bum has been at the back. God has been rejected as King so many times

It's a shame we haven't been able to share or state the distinction between the "Kingdom of God" and the "Kingdom of Heaven", as it would have given more clarity and understanding of the Kingdom

I agree shdemidemi, but can you please point me to where rapture is in the bible?