nlMediator:

It is self-explanatory. Nothing is gained by exalting Paul or his teachings.

nlMediator:


1. It's either you believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God or you do not. You cannot choose to discredit portions of the Bible on any basis whatsoever - regeneration, receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. Even Paul said ALL scripture is given by inspiration, not just Pauline epistles.

nlMediator:

2. Even before Paul and the New Testament, God has been revealing DEEP things to His people. To quote something from Paul and make it suggest that Paul was the only one that received deep things is to prove your argument with your argument. That's logically fallacious.

nlMediator:

3. We also hear the suggestion that Peter acknowledged that Paul's teachings were hard for him to understand. Yet, Peter said no such thing.

nlMediator:

It is self-explanatory. Nothing is gained by exalting Paul or his teachings.

1. It's either you believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God or you do not. You cannot choose to discredit portions of the Bible on any basis whatsoever - regeneration, receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. Even Paul said ALL scripture is given by inspiration, not just Pauline epistles.

2. Even before Paul and the New Testament, God has been revealing DEEP things to His people. To quote something from Paul and make it suggest that Paul was the only one that received deep things is to prove your argument with your argument. That's logically fallacious.

3. We also hear the suggestion that Peter acknowledged that Paul's teachings were hard for him to understand. Yet, Peter said no such thing.

4. It is true that Jesus made it clear He will reveal additional stuff to His disciples. He never said it would be through only one person or two. Nor did he say that the words of one disciple should be exalted above others, including Jesus's words. All scripture should be read in harmony.

5. The people that harp on Paul usually do so out of convenience or to show their own superiority.

[/quote]If they followed Paul strictly, they would never preach things like tithes or first fruits. [quote]

How come the person with the deep revelation forgot something on which churches spend so much effort?

Joagbaje:

It's not self explanatory at all. Because what he said doesn't relate to the spirit of my post or it's simplicity. You should let image 123 clarify himself

There is higher level of truth and lesser truths. All are based on certain principles. Don't be too quick to criticise what you don't understand. You should rather ask question.

Pls study your bible first, read Pauline epistles with open heart.

Peter acknowledge some of pails teachings were hard to be understood.

Youre Veering too far off.I'm contrasting between those who rather dwell on the teachings in the gospels and refuse to study the deeper teachings of Pauline epistles ,claiming the gospels are the words of Jesus and by that carry superiority. so don't ,miss my point

The epistles are for us all. That's why I'm giving invitation to everybody o come and see the treasure in the epistles .

God never did away with them. Paiul himself taught on it.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.


you have so much assumptions. Read my opening thread again with a fresh open heart. You don't sound as though you even understand it

newmi:

Sure it is. . . but l can't find anybody making claims of gains let alone exalting Paul or his teachings.please l think you should read the post again but your statements with all due respects seem to suggest that you perhaps didn't carefully read through the post. Because l cannot find any similitude of an intent based on choice to discredit portions of the Bible why should anyone do that or attempt to do that because 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". It is profitable meaning that; "it is usefu"l, "it is appropriate", "it is well suited for", bearing this in mind it would be insane to even attempt to discredit any portion.
The point is simple Paul was an apostle "primarily" ordained and sent to the gentiles so without any discredit to other disciples or apostle it is only logical to accept the postulation that Christ revealled to him details about this gospel as it concerns the gentile church
Galasians 1:15-16
15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. HIS LAST STATEMENT SUGGEST THAT IT WAS DIVINE
You are sure and convinced he (Peter) didn't?
Then what do you have to say about this
2 Peter 3:14-16
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Joagbaje:


God never did away with them. Paiul himself taught on it.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

newmi:

I read this and thought to share it. . .
PAUL’S OFFICE



Paul had no direct contact with Jesus before his experience on the Damascus Road. For all we can tell, this man was a complete stranger to the fellowship that gathered around Jesus before the crucifixion. Who ordered him, and how came he to be acknowledged by churchmen as an apostle on par with the Twelve? There is absolutely no mention of him in the gospels, even in Luke's Gospel, though he may have been in Jerusalem during the periods of Jesus’ ministry there. He must, as a student of Gamaliel the great Pharisee teacher, (or so Luke has him saying – Acts 22:3) have been informed of the events surrounding Jesus' arrest and execution. Our first knowledge of him is in the Acts when, during the martyrdom of Stephen, he stood by and held the garments of those who cast the stones. Paul (according to Luke) also confirms his participation in the event, in his defense before the Sanhedrin after being arrested in Jerusalem prior to his first imprisonment in Rome (Acts 22:30). But he was never in the company of Jesus (at least, there is no record of such), and had no association with the Twelve until after his experience on the Damascus Road. He was a complete stranger.

Jesus chose only twelve apostles and named them. Paul was not among them. Then he promised them that they should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Their number therefore corresponds to the number of the tribes of Israel, and we have no indication that Jesus intended to add others. Of course, Judas' betrayal and demise left only eleven. Could Paul have seen himself as filling the vacancy? No, for he would surely have made that his claim. The fact is that the remaining eleven were instrumental in the selection of Matthias to fill this vacancy as even Luke informs us in The Acts, and had Paul seen himself as being Judas' replacement, Luke would certainly have seen him as such. I believe, nevertheless, that Paul was Judas's successor – as traitor! Judas betrayed him in his flesh; Paul betrayed him in his spirit.


A clue as to how Paul viewed his apostleship
Luke's account of the story of Paul's “revelation” in Acts 9 may give us our first clue as to how Paul conceived his apostleship and justified his claim to that high and exalted position in the fellowship of Jesus.
Having been blinded by the brilliant light outside the city of Damascus, he was led into the city where for three days he was without sight and neither ate nor drank. Then the Lord appeared to a disciple at Damascus, Ananias by name, and sent him to Paul that he might regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Ananias objected because he had heard of Paul's reputation as a persecutor of the followers of Jesus but the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel . . , " Now, since the twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus already occupied the ministry to the sons of Israel, Paul from the beginning must have seen his ministry as focused on the Gentiles, who were listed first in the heavenly vision to Ananias as recounted by Paul to Luke. Thus Paul, writing in the Galatian letter, recounts his version of a meeting with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem that concluded, according to Paul, with the agreement between them that they (Peter, James and John) would focus their ministry on the circumcised, whereas Paul and Barnabus would go to the Gentiles. Paul says of this meeting:

. . . when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7,.
In writing thus, has he not clearly defined his apostleship, with himself being the apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter and the others of the Twelve are the apostles to the twelve tribes of the circumcision?

Luke's Background and Relation to Paul
If Luke was a native of Psidian Antioch as David Smith supposes, then the sermon Paul preached there, related by Luke in Acts 13, may have been the very sermon that resulted in Luke's conversion to Jesus. His detailed account of the sermon suggests that he may even have recorded it in short hand as Paul preached, and certainly suggests that he was there and gave careful attention to what was said.
Luke was an uncircumcised Greek and likely was also one of the Gentile "God fearers" attached to the synagogue in Antioch. He was careful to provide clues placing him in the congregation that heard Paul's sermon. He has Paul introducing the sermon with the words,

Men of Israel, and you that fear God, listen . . ,
Then, at the conclusion of the sermon, Luke writes:
When the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the Grace of God.
We are then told that on the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God, but the sight of the multitude excited the Jews to jealousy so that they contradicted what Paul said. Luke's narrative continues:
And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6). And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:46-48).
A shiver moves down my spine as I realize that Luke may be describing his own conversion!

The Biblical Source of Paul’s Commission as Apostle:
Paul’s speech to the Jews at Antioch gives intimation of the source of his conviction of his office as Apostle to the Gentiles. He claims a calling that antedates the call of Jesus to the Twelve, as the light for the Gentiles quotation comes from Isaiah 49:6 (this is applied to Jesus in Luke 2:32) and Paul saw it as a special commission directed to him, and perhaps also to Barnabas. A further indication of this comes in Paul's account of his calling in Galatians where we read:
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles . . ,
This is again a reference to Isaiah 49, v. 2, where the prophet says,
The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name, and v. 5, The Lord says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant . . ,
Isaiah 49 further explains Paul's ambition to go to Spain, in its promise to send him to the uttermost parts of the earth, which, in Paul's time, with its Pillars of Hercules, represented the uttermost parts. (Acts 13:47, Isaiah 49:6, repeated below)
Paul surely understood that this was a source of his commission. This shows up in other passages such as Philippians 2:16, where Paul writes of his expectation of being proud of the Philippian Christians on the Day of Christ, when it will be shown that he did not "labor in vain," an expression that harks back to Isaiah 49:4: But I said, "I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God." He seems to have taken this passage as a forewarning to do all in his power to see that his labors were not in vain.

We see this popping up again in I Corinthians, where he wrote:

Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation."
This quotation being, again, from Isaiah 49:8. Paul sees himself as the one called from the womb of his mother and hidden away in the Lord's quiver like a polished arrow (Isaiah 49:2). It is reasonable to suppose that Luke, the young convert, was so powerfully impressed by the words of Paul as to accept this as the authorization of Paul’s ministry from the very beginning of his (Luke's) experience with Jesus. There is no good reason to doubt that this was Paul's understanding of his office and apostleship. On this basis he surely saw his apostleship as antedating and therefore superior to that of the Twelve

nlMediator:

Saying that God never did away with them and that Paul taught on them are 2 different claims. You have no scriptural support for the second claim. The portion you quoted mentions neither tithes nor firstfruits. Paul was talking about supporting ministers and countless ministries and millions of christians over centuries have proven that you can support ministers without tithes and firstfruits. So, trying to read tithes and first fruits into that scripture is completely unconvincing.

Besides, when tithes and firstfruits are preached, they're preached primarily on the basis that they're the foundation to the christian's financial blessings. Not only does the scripture you quoted not say that, but you'd think that Paul with his higher and deeper revelation would say so. Instead those who emphasize tithes and first fruits as foundational to prosperity resort to other books of the Bible and ancient practices. That automatically contradicts your point that Paul had ALL the revelation needed to excel. If he couldn't teach on something that foundational, it means that other scriptures are equally as important. Otherwise, the claim that tithes and firstfruits are foundational is false. Both ideas ("Paul is ALL" & "tithes are FOUNDATIONAL" cannot co-exist.

Image123:
.
Jo, you should be saying 'amen', not asking for explanation of my prayers,

Joagbaje:

^^^^^^
If you don't have something meaningful to contribute sir, let me be. Your religious prayer is more like a polite insult.I see it as carnal an unedifying. I understsnd such language. You can keep the prayers for yourself thanks.

Joagbaje:

The primary way ministers were supported is through tithes and offerings to God. He doesn't have to mention first fruits because its an offering .If you say tithes is done away, then you're saying offering is done away also because they are based on the same principles of worshiping God by faith with our resouces. Do you believe in giving offering in church? Do you give offering to God?

You should understand that principles are eternal. Prayers, offerings,tithing, sowing,righteous living etc.are all based on spiritual laws and principles. They transcend dispensations, we cannot outgrow them. That's why certain things which are based on principles under the law are still applicable till now. E.g honouring your parents and living long. Sowing and reaping etc. Calling something foundational does not mean childish. The foundation is the principle which structures are built.

I don’t know if you if you realize you’re making my point and undermining yours. First, the question on this thread is not whether tithing is valid, but whether Paul preached it. Second, I’ve been consistently using ‘foundational’ in this discussion in the same sense you mentioned – as an important first step upon which other steps are built. Third, stating that tithing is dispensational means that you agree that this “deep truth” was revealed to others before Paul – the same point I’ve been making that God has been revealing deep truths way before Paul. All of these suggest that we can find the whole truth in the whole Bible, not by isolating one writer and claiming that he has all the revelation we need.

I find it interesting that you continue to link Paul to tithing. I’ve been in several churches and each time I’ve heard the tithe message preached, nobody has ever referred to Paul. It’s always to Genesis (Abram) and Malachi (and sometimes Leviticus). That you want to link Paul to it suggests you understand that for both your doctrine of tithes in the modern Church and your elevation of Paul to hold true, you must claim that Paul preached on tithes. But the questions you cannot answer are: If he wanted to talk about tithes, why not do what every writer on tithes have done – use the word “tithe”? Why bring it in indirectly, especially when Paul is well-known for being direct?

I don’t know why it is hard for you understand that God can abolish tithes without abolishing giving. Especially when the basis for God-instituted tithe (not the voluntary one) is clearly spelt out in the Bible (the levites did not inherit land) and God do away with the instruction when the same circumstances are no longer present. To answer your question directly, I believe in giving and so does Paul and my church.

I have my own question for you too: why did Jesus teach Kenneth Hagin about the believer’s authority by referencing the gospels and other writers besides Paul, when Paul alone would have been sufficient as the apostle to the gentiles?

Image123:

nlMediator, o se. Thanks for mediating, couldn't have said it better ithink.
Jo, you should be saying 'amen', not asking for explanation of my prayers, is it that deep or high? The disciples turned THE WORLD upside down, here you are turning THE BIBLE upside down. May God help you in Jesus' name.

Barr rich:

There is so much to learn from this post as this is a very important exposition of the basic fundamentals of christianity which are in the Epistles of Paul. Let me share this.

According to the Bible, the purpose for Paul's call into the ministry was:

", to make thee a minister and a witness both of these same things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me". Acts 26:16-18.

A good study of the Pauline Epistles therefore will reveal to the Christian, basic doctrines of the Christian faith which will make him wise unto salvation.

1. How can a man be saved?

Paul teaches us in Rom 10:9-10, whereas if you look at the gospels you would not find any exposition on this subject. The closest to this is found in John where he tells us, ", as many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God".John 1:12-13.

So what does a man need to do to get this life?

Paul tells us: ", if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved. Rom 10:9.
He goes further to explain, "For with the heart man believeth unto rightousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation".Rom 10:10.

2. A good study of the Epistles of Paul will make the Christian understand certain basic doctrines of christianity like righteousness. You will understand righteousness in the old testament and righteousness in the New testament and get to understand that righteousness in the old testament was given as a post dated cheque which could not be spent until the coming of the messiah.

3. Similarly, the Christian will get to understand the place of the Jews in the plan of God, and what God is looking at now, the new creation, Gal 6:15, who he tells us is ", a life giving spirit, born after the 2nd Adam, 1 Cor 15:47-49.

There is so much that a Christian will get to understand on the finished works of Christ by diligently studying the Pauline Epistles. Paul himself was a very studious man as he was able to study the Books of the Law and relate them with the New Testament, which is actually the birth of the Church. ignoring or

So, there is no gainsaying in asserting that this post seeks to magnify the teachings of Paul above the teachings of Christ, but every Christian that really wants to grow to full maturity will need to get himself acquainted with the teachings of Apostle Paul as regards the new creation. No wonder, the Epistles of Apostle Paul make up about one third of the New Testament.

OLAADEGBU:

Image123, you hard o! At least give the man some credit for his stand on tithes and offering.

Image123:

Stop wrongly dividing the Word of truth. The scriptures make one wise unto salvation. It's poison to allege that it is pauline epistles that make one wise unto salvation. The Spirit of God has given a wonderful unity and harmony to the Bible. Repent of your carnal comparisons, divisions and awards.

nlMediator:

What I'm beginning to notice in christians is a curious habit of choosing what to believe, finding scriptures that support it, and explaining away anything to the contrary - using any convenient excuse. The good thing, though, is that many of such people are well-intentioned.

1. On salvation, has it occurred to you that multitudes were saved even before Paul received his own salvation, much less the revelation about Rom. 10: 9-10?

2. When Jesus spoke to Peter about building His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail, what Church was that? Where was Paul then? Is the revelation on which the Church would be built unique to Paul, so much that everybody had to wait till Paul got saved, got revelation and shared with us?

3. Was Paul the only person that taught on righteousness for believers?

4. Was it Paul that told us that we hare a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a unique people , . .

The funny thing is that many of you are quick to quote Peter and James when it suits you but discard them when you can hide under Paul to achieve whatever purpose you're looking at at that moment.

Interesting that God chose to reveal baby food to the rest of the NT writers and strong meat exclusively to Paul, but He didn't bother to tell us that, so that new believers would know to focus on those foods and as they mature move on to Paul. God had to wait for you guys to catch that revelation and reveal to the rest of us.

And to what purpose? To divide His Word?

Image123:

^
Paul himself didn't give himself such flattery. The Word of God is 66books authored by God. One part is not more inspired than the other. No need calling names, Paul has his reward from God. If you want to call Paul in this story, then do diligence to call others too to the parti.

newmi:

but what wrong would it do if the name of the apostle Paul in mentioned in the success story, l don't think it would change anything or would it?