Ubenedictus: It seem i have lost my post, but suffice to say that i disagree with the idea of a different gospel for a different minister.

Could you please elucidate on what you don't agree with.

Are you saying God did not reveal the secrets which were hidden in God to only apostle Paul?

Or

Are you speaking about our contemporary ministers who says they receive a fresh revelation to propagate another gospel e.g prosperity, health, finance, etc.?

DrummaBoy: Thus we enter into the meat of this discuss. The reason why I opened this thread. Please notice how far apart verse 8 and 9 are to each other; in fact they are opposite:

[/color]

When Paul describes the Corinthians here as being rich, full and reigning as kings, there is only one picture that comes to my mind: the prosperity gospel. The health and wealth gospel. The gospel that teaches that Christ would have you rich or die trying (the bolded is my addition). This gospel is not just taught; it is lived out in its full splendor. Large cathedrals, large congregation, exotic cars, king-palaced-houses and homes, etc. They even use Paul's literal words here: we are kings; we are gods; we are called to enjoy all of God; etc.

Paul contrast these with the lives of the apostles as one set by God to be appointed to death. We catch a glimpse of a bit of this in 2 Corinthians 1

[color=#000099]

This are the realities that confronted Paul's ministry. My question: is this a reality that is expected in the life of modern day Christians or this was unique to Paul because Jesus had said of his ministry in Acts 9

[color=#000099][/color]

Well, let me answer myself partially, while awaiting other responses: it cannot be because Paul had said that it is the apostles, not just himself, that God has set forth and appointed unto death. Then in 2 Cor 1, he says of all believers that God comforts us in our tribulations. So tribulation is not unique to Paul but is for all believers.

He said of these corinthians, like one could say to modern prosperity gospellers, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you[/b]. In other words , you think you are reigning as kings; I wish you really were, so that we too could reign with you. There is a deep contrast between apostolic Christianity and today's Christianity, and the essence of this thread is that we may discover this and begin to inch more and more to the apostolic way of doing things no matter what it cost us.

it is true that the circumstance determine the challenges to be met but in scripture paul show is the test of a true minister, he show us what the life is. Their lives is and must be SACRIFICIAL, it must be lived for the people of God, today's ministers may never experience the physical agony paul went thru, but for them to be true ministers they must give themselves up to their brother and sister and by so doing offer their lives to God.
This is the most important thing, he must daily "give up his life" for the salvation of his fellow men. This is not just for ministers but in a sense for each individual christian
Peace

shdemidemi:

Could you please elucidate on what you don't agree with.
Are you saying God did not reveal the secrets which were hidden in God to only apostle Paul?
Or
Are you speaking about our contemporary ministers who says they receive a fresh revelation to propagate another gospel e.g prosperity, health, finance, etc.?

ok i'll explain.
i totally disagree with the idea that there is one gospel for paul and a different model for peter and a different model for john. I also disagree with the idea that only apostle paul had d mysteries.
I believe the gospel to be one, not of different models.
Peace
I believe there is only one gospel entrusted to all these apostles

Ubenedictus: ok i'll explain.
i totally disagree with the idea that there is one gospel for paul and a different model for peter and a different model for john. I also disagree with the idea that only apostle paul had d mysteries.
I believe the gospel to be one, not of different models.
Peace
I believe there is only one gospel entrusted to all these apostles

I believe we both know that the gospel Jesus gave the disciples back in the days of his earthly ministry was 'Jesus is the son of God'. He told them to go out and share this gospel with Israelites only. Generally, the Jews are familiar with the scriptures, they know the meaning of who Jesus is trying to say he is back from the prophesies.

Being the son of God means he is the mighty God, everlasting father and the king of the Jews bringing kingdom of heaven on earth. If they did not kill Jesus, He would have ruled over just Israel and gentiles would have been condemned forever. Jesus instructed the disciples not to go the way of gentiles and even their half brothers, the Samaritans.

We know the story, they did not believe so they killed him. Things changed after he was killed, the gentiles became engrafted into the plan of God for man. There were secrets hidden in God behind the death and resurrection of Christ, was Peter and the others aware of this mysteries? No, they were still preaching 'Jesus is the son of God' to Israel until God opened Peter's eyes to see the gentiles are no more anathema to God.

Did Peter get the full secrets and mysteries? No, because God is going to pick up a Paul who would preach a gospel beyond 'Jesus is the son of God'. He would be taught by the risen Christ to propagate the story about the death burial and resurrection of Christ.


Please read Romans 11 to see where Paul calls the Jews to come into his gospel of GRACE aside the law

Ubenedictus: ok i'll explain.
i totally disagree with the idea that there is one gospel for paul and a different model for peter and a different model for john. I also disagree with the idea that only apostle paul had d mysteries.
I believe the gospel to be one, not of different models.
Peace
I believe there is only one gospel entrusted to all these apostles

I believe this too.

alexleo:

I believe this too.

I use to believe it too bro. I am sure you agree the scriptures is our guide. We have one minister appointed to the gentiles by God. That is not saying we can't read the entire bible or a Jew individual can't accept Christ 'alone' minus the law and Jewish tradition.

I use to say "There is no difference between Peter's message and Paul's message." For goodness sake, there's so much difference it's like daylight and dark. I can give you contradictions between the two gospels (separate news of Christ) if you want.

shdemidemi:

I use to believe it too bro. I am sure you agree the scriptures is our guide, I can give you contradictions between the two gospels (separate news of Christ) if you want.

All scriptures are written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself. I dont also belong to the school that believes scriptures can contradict itself. Contradictions are based on our understanding as human. Except for the things of old testament which the new testament redefined or cancelled outrightly every other thing there is good as written. Thanks.

alexleo:

All scriptures are written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself. I dont also belong to the school that believes scriptures can contradict itself. Contradictions are based on our understanding as human. Except for the things of old testament which the new testament redefined or cancelled outrightly every other thing there is good as written. Thanks.

I never said we should not read all part of the scriptures bro.

I never said the scriptures contradict- I am saying Paul's message contradict (simply because it was a gospel of Christ plus nothing) the message of the rest.
Peter and the rest came out of that Jewish background under the Covenant promises, under the Law nothing changed after the death of Christ, they continued as if they were under the old covenant.

There is really no "different gospels". What we have are different degrees of understanding and adoption of the ONE gospel. From the documented scriptures available to us today, Paul has the best understanding of the Gospel of Jesus which is righteousness by grace only, and completely disregarding the law.

Paul was far more educated than the other apostles, being a trained pharisee himself, he had better knowledge of the law and had the full extent to which the gospel had totally abolished the same law. All of Paul's messages were always about absolute grace without the law, but he also acknowledges that people would have varying degrees of understanding and adoption of this grace, so he gave permission for those who still had a conscience for the law, allowing them to practice grace only to the extent that their conscience permits. Things like the fear of food offered to idols but Paul himself has no fear of idols, believing that all food is approved by God for consumption regardless of any idols. Also he permits them to marry and own one another, though he himself chooses not to marry(note: I did not say he chose to go without s.ex), knowing that marriage is a tradition of the Law, not of grace But he himself maintains the absoluteness of grace and urges his students to be followers of himself just as he is a follower of christ.

So what do we have today?? There is no church today that follows the gospel in the manner that Paul recommended and practiced. Every church still preaches and observes the law in some form or the other. They still fear other gods apart from the christian god, they still cast out demons from people who are supposed to be "born-again christians", they still preach and fear the power of sin over themselves, etc. All these are fruits of the Law, manifested by people who are still bound to the law in their consciences.

Kudos y'all. Being reading n enjoying good study here on da thread. Keep them on.

okeyxyz: There is [b]really [/b]no "different gospels"..

Bro, we have to know what we know and be sure about it. Using he word 'really' does not sound convincing to me.

okeyxyz: What we have are different degrees of understanding and adoption of the ONE gospel. From the documented scriptures available to us today, Paul has the best understanding of the Gospel of Jesus which is righteousness by grace only, and completely disregarding the law.

Nooo, Paul wouldn't confront the rest of the disciples if it was just an issue of understanding. The Holy Spirit would not make Paul a gospel primarily to the gentiles if it was all an issue of understanding. Don't you see it that way?

okeyxyz:
Paul was far more educated than the other apostles, being a trained pharisee himself, he had better knowledge of the law and had the full extent to which the gospel had totally abolished the same law. All of Paul's messages were always about absolute grace without the law, but he also acknowledges that people would have varying degrees of understanding and adoption of this grace, so he gave permission for those who still had a conscience for the law,.

Please show me how he gave permission to those who adhered to the law.

okeyxyz:
So what do we have today?? There is no church today that follows the gospel in the manner that Paul recommended and practiced. Every church still preaches and observes the law in some form or the other. They still fear other gods apart from the christian god, they still cast out demons from people who are supposed to be "born-again christians", they still preach and fear the power of sin over themselves, etc. All these are fruits of the Law, manifested by people who are still bound to the law in their consciences.

Paul yelled at the church in Galatia for practicing the deeds of the law, I await a response on how Paul gave room for the church to practice the requirements of the law.

@Ubenedictus
Thanks U so much on your contribution. Even where U said U disagreed with me, in a sense we may be saying the same thing. Hope U will go on with us in this discuss.

@Shdemidemi
I appreciate ur grasp of the doctrine of grace but I am uncomfortable with this two or more gospel U talk about. Can U pls open a thread to discuss this matter extensively without detailing this one? We will meet U there.

@Okeyz
Same with U as demi. I appreciate ur grasp of doctrine but this liberty with sex U talk about is not in keeping with holiness O. And this sort of talk is what makes the Judaizers on this forum claim that those who teach grace are lawless. Pls can U explain urself here or better still on a new thread?

shdemidemi:

I never said we should not read all part of the scriptures bro.

I never said the scriptures contradict- I am saying Paul's message contradict (simply because it was a gospel of Christ plus nothing) the message of the rest.
Peter and the rest came out of that Jewish background under the Covenant promises, under the Law nothing changed after the death of Christ, they continued as if they were under the old covenant.

Well, that's an observation you made but me reads the scripture with a very simple and open mind. I don't worry myself about who speaks what among the apostles. Mine is to read and accept what is written. Thanks.

Let's respect the wish of the OP bro by sticking to the topic.

Hopefully, we would reason about the issue of two gospels in future.

shdemidemi:

I use to believe it too bro. I am sure you agree the scriptures is our guide. We have one minister appointed to the gentiles by God. That is not saying we can't read the entire bible or a Jew individual can't accept Christ 'alone' minus the law and Jewish tradition.

I use to say "There is no difference between Peter's message and Paul's message." For goodness sake, there's so much difference it's like daylight and dark. I can give you contradictions between the two gospels (separate news of Christ) if you want.

I don't understand...

Are you saying the epistles by Peter, James are different from the Pauline epistles? Note: Epistles, not the accounts of the gospel.

Secondly, don't we have harmony of scriptures? Do these epistles contradict themselves in anyway.

Lastly, what would this knowledge - that Paul handled the mysteries add to me as a believer (i.e. the merit in understanding this)?

Thanks.

DrummaBoy: @Ubenedictus
Thanks U so much on your contribution. Even where U said U disagreed with me, in a sense we may be saying the same thing. Hope U will go on with us in this discuss.

@Shdemidemi
I appreciate ur grasp of the doctrine of grace but I am uncomfortable with this two or more gospel U talk about. Can U pls open a thread to discuss this matter extensively without detailing this one? We will meet U there.

@Okeyz
Same with U as demi. I appreciate ur grasp of doctrine but this liberty with sex U talk about is not in keeping with holiness O. And this sort of talk is what makes the Judaizers on this forum claim that those who teach grace are lawless. Pls can U explain urself here or better still on a new thread?

Ohh! Great!

I think there are threads already. They could please help us with a link.

Thanks.

shdemidemi: Let's respect the wish of the OP bro by sticking to the topic.

Hopefully, we would reason about the issue of two gospels in future.

You could open a separate thread if you want to thrash-out this issue of "two" or "not two" gospels.

DrummaBoy:
@Okeyz
Same with U as demi. I appreciate ur grasp of doctrine but this liberty with sex U talk about is not in keeping with holiness O. And this sort of talk is what makes the Judaizers on this forum claim that those who teach grace are lawless. Pls can U explain urself here or better still on a new thread?

You are still defining holiness according to the judaizer's moral code(The Law), that's why you make efforts to agree with them. But Paul(revealing the messages of Jesus) teaches expressly that the gospel is meant to be against this moral code that judaizers judge you by.

Why would Paul declare that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of christ if not that gospel was regarded as a thing of shame(lawlessness) and against the values of tradition? Surely it couldn't be in conformity with morals of the judaizers. Why would Paul declare that the gospel is an object of "offense"(Sin) to the jews(Judaizers) and foolishness to secular people?? Everything Pul preached was in absolute opposition to the moral code of the judaizers...

If you as a christian go about hoping that your values would appeal to and be applauded by the world(judaizers and secularist), then you must not understand anything that Paul has preached. I'm not saying you shouldn't respect other people's values, laws and traditions; No, you respect them for the sake of peace and co-existence in society, but don't make them your own christian doctrine.

maybe I continue in another thread, if you choose to open one.

double post

okeyxyz:

You are still defining holiness according to the judaizer's moral code(The Law), that's why you make efforts to agree with them. But Paul(revealing the messages of Jesus) teaches expressly that the gospel is meant to be against this moral code that judaizers judge you by.

Why would Paul declare that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of christ if not that gospel was regarded as a thing of shame(lawlessness) and against the values of tradition? Surely it couldn't be in conformity with morals of the judaizers. Why would Paul declare that the gospel is an object of "offense"(Sin) to the jews(Judaizers) and foolishness to secular people?? Everything Pul preached was in absolute opposition to the moral code of the judaizers...

If you as a christian go about hoping that your values would appeal to and be applauded by the world(judaizers and secularist), then you must not understand anything that Paul has preached. I'm not saying you shouldn't respect other people's values, laws and traditions; No, you respect them for the sake of peace and co-existence in society, but don't make them your own christian doctrine.

maybe I continue in another thread, if you choose to open one.

These threads are difficult to open these dayz. At the risk of derailing this thread let us thrash out this issue with you here and right now. While I accept much of what you say on the gospel of grace, the words I have a problem with in your post are these ones

okeyxyz: All of Paul's messages were always about absolute grace without the law, but he also acknowledges that people would have varying degrees of understanding and adoption of this grace, so he gave permission for those who still had a conscience for the law, allowing them to practice grace only to the extent that their conscience permits. Things like the fear of food offered to idols but Paul himself has no fear of idols, believing that all food is approved by God for consumption regardless of any idols. Also he permits them to marry and own one another, though he himself chooses not to marry (note: I did not say he chose to go without s.ex), knowing that marriage is a tradition of the Law, not of grace[/b] But he himself maintains the absoluteness of grace and urges his students to be followers of himself just as he is a follower of christ.

.

Are you saying that though Paul did not marry he had liberty to have sex. What is fornication then?

Also I have seen your post on some thread were you say something like you are not married but can have sex and there is no sin with that. One could not take you up on that then without giving those judaizers a reason to glory. But now that you we are here you can help clarify your position.

Also, the reason why we walk in holiness is to please God and to glorify him in our lives not to please men and Judaizers. There are people who take the doctrines of Paul for a licence to sin. Luther called them antinomians. I am hoping you are not one of them.

Pls, Okeyz, clarify your position and then we can carry on with the discuss on one Corinthians four.

DrummaBoy:
Are you saying that though Paul did not marrying he had liberty with sex.

That is precisely what I am saying. If a man chooses to abide absolutely to Paul's teachings, then such a person cannot be married but will have full liberty to sex. The doctrines of abstinence from sex is not christian, it is pagan doctrine passed down to us by the catholic church. People read the bible today with a lot of wrong assumptions on morality, tradition and meanings of words.

What is fornication then?

Fornication or sexual immorality simply means: unnatural sex or sex without consent. As long as two single people agree to have sex, then it is right sex. Like I said before, people read the bible with wrong assumptions. A careful read of 1 Corinthians 7, with your strong's dictionary & concordance in hand, will help uncover this doctrine that has been hidden from us for generations. Paul says: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.., touch here does not mean sex as we interpret it today(assumption), it means to cling to, to posses, in other words to marry. Also when he talks about passion/lust, again we interpret it to mean sex, wrong again. Lust means the desire to posses. It has absolutely nothing to do with sex. Passion is a negative emotion in a sexual relationship, like jealousy, bitterness, etc. Now it is Lust and passion in a sexual relationship that constitutes fornication because it removes the consent and liberty from such a relationship.

So Paul says: because of immorality, let every man have(stick to) his own wife and every woman have(stick to) her own husband.... Now why would Paul give such an order if not that they were sharing sex partners? But this sharing was causing a lot of frictions, jealousies and fightings, thus fornication, therefore Paul commands them: Husbands stick to wives only, and wives stick to your husbands only. He further says: it is better not to marry, but if you cannot control your lust(desire to own her), then go ahead and marry and avoid this fornication that is consuming you(burning with passion/jealousy/bitterness).

This is my summary. I know It is hard to take but it is the truth. Jesus spoke about marriage(encoded) when He said:

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."(Matthew 19:12)

The root implication of a eunuch is: someone who cannot or chooses not to marry. You will understand this when you consider the original institution and laws of marriage(not as we interpret marriage today) which gives a man the right to own a woman, own children and pass inheritance to them, therefore any child born outside of marriage cannot have an inheritance. So people who cannot partake marriage are called eunuchs and Jesus defines three categories of them. Natural eunuchs, which I believe are homose.xuals, Man-made eunuchs who have been castrated and cannot partake in marriage and lastly People who choose the life of eunuchs for religious reasons. This is the category Paul belonged to, one which the catholic church has corrupted with it's vows of celibacy, a pagan practice.

Also, the reason why we walk in holiness is to please God and to glorify him in our lives not to please men and Judaizers. There are people who take the doctrines of Paul for a license to sin. Luther called them antinomians. I am hoping you are not one of them.

Holiness does not mean abstinence from your natural bodily urges. Holiness means dedicating your body to God, not to the traditions\institutions of men of which marriage is chief amongst them. Why do these Judaizers call the doctrines of Paul a license to sin if not that these doctrine were actually sinful from the points of view of their moral codes(the law)? Thus Paul's words:

but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block(an offence, a sin)...(1 Corinthians 1:23)

So the judaizers accuse the followers of Paul as sinners and they are right according to their own Law of Moses, but Paul is no longer under the law but under grace and it is this grace in christ that gives him the right to go as he pleases. So what is truly sinful under the law is now righteous under grace.

This passage is getting long, so I stop now, but I'd made my point.

^ Alright. Okeyz. I have heard your point. I cannnot receive that doctrine though. It is too high and lofty for me. My questions for you are finished.
,
Except some others want to question you further, we will continue with One Corinthians four...

@ okeyxyz

I don't agree 'touch' used in 1Cor 7:1 is not intercourse

I don't agree that Lust means the desire to posses instead it denotes 'strong desire' of any kind.

I don't agree with this statement 'If a man chooses to abide absolutely to Paul's teachings, then such a person cannot be married but will have full liberty to sex'

okeyxyz: So Paul says: because of immorality, let every man have(stick to) his own wife and every woman have(stick to) her own husband.... Now why would Paul give such an order if not that they were sharing sex partners? But this sharing was causing a lot of frictions, jealousies and fightings, thus fornication, therefore Paul commands them: Husbands stick to wives only, and wives stick to your husbands only. He further says: it is better not to marry, but if you cannot control your lust(desire to own her), then go ahead and marry and avoid this fornication that is consuming you(burning with passion/jealousy/bitterness).

I don't agree with all of that as well... Check from my earlier post on why Paul spoke In the manner he spoke to this church in Corinth.

The greek word for touch in the original manuscript is 'hapto' , which means to have carnal intercourse with a woman'

Una don lost me finish for this thread sef. I will soon call for the 'convention of grace' for the grace teachers o. Anyway, I will contribute fully again on Thursday and Friday, my days off from work.

I thought I was the only one seeing this...

Liberty to have sex indeed!

No where is it suggested in scriptures that paul lived such an immoral lifestyle.

shdemidemi: @ okeyxyz

I don't agree 'touch' used in 1Cor 7:1 is not intercourse

I don't agree that Lust means the desire to posses instead it denotes 'strong desire' of any kind.

I don't agree with this statement 'If a man chooses to abide absolutely to Paul's teachings, then such a person cannot be married but will have full liberty to sex'



I don't agree with all of that as well... Check from my earlier post on why Paul spoke In the manner he spoke to this church in Corinth.

The greek word for touch in the original manuscript is 'hapto' , which means to have carnal intercourse with a woman'

I await Goshen's contribution before I proceed on this discuss. I hope the thread is not boring us, because we have fewer people contributing to the discuss lately.

And BTW I have not seen anything from Bidam, Image, Alwaystrue, etc.

^ Make una continue my brother. I have little time during the week, occupied with work but I'm usually off on Thursdays and Fridays. I also use those two days to do lots of run around for the week but will surely contribute and\or reply most of the contributions and the rest of the days, I will contribute slowly.

@ drummaboy

I think you should continue while we wait for the others to join in.

^Okay, bosses, I will. I got something interesting for verse 10

shdemidemi:

I believe we both know that the gospel Jesus gave the disciples back in the days of his earthly ministry was 'Jesus is the son of God'. He told them to go out and share this gospel with Israelites only. Generally, the Jews are familiar with the scriptures, they know the meaning of who Jesus is trying to say he is back from the prophesies.

Being the son of God means he is the mighty God, everlasting father and the king of the Jews bringing kingdom of heaven on earth. If they did not kill Jesus, He would have ruled over just Israel and gentiles would have been condemned forever. Jesus instructed the disciples not to go the way of gentiles and even their half brothers, the Samaritans.

We know the story, they did not believe so they killed him. Things changed after he was killed, the gentiles became engrafted into the plan of God for man. There were secrets hidden in God behind the death and resurrection of Christ, was Peter and the others aware of this mysteries? No, they were still preaching 'Jesus is the son of God' to Israel until God opened Peter's eyes to see the gentiles are no more anathema to God.

Did Peter get the full secrets and mysteries? No, because God is going to pick up a Paul who would preach a gospel beyond 'Jesus is the son of God'. He would be taught by the risen Christ to propagate the story about the death burial and resurrection of Christ.


Please read Romans 11 to see where Paul calls the Jews to come into his gospel of GRACE aside the law

oh! Tell me! You are saying the gospel given to paul is different from the one given to peter, oh i disagree.
The apostle came to know the truth that the gospel was also for the gentiles thru the help of the holyspirit, but it is simply wow to say that implies their gospel as different.

shdemidemi:

I use to believe it too bro. I am sure you agree the scriptures is our guide. We have one minister appointed to the gentiles by God. That is not saying we can't read the entire bible or a Jew individual can't accept Christ 'alone' minus the law and Jewish tradition.

I use to say "There is no difference between Peter's message and Paul's message." For goodness sake, there's so much difference it's like daylight and dark. I can give you contradictions between the two gospels (separate news of Christ) if you want.

tell me this is a joke two seperate gospels of christ. Tell me i didn't read that.

Ubenedictus: oh! Tell me! You are saying the gospel given to paul is different from the one given to peter, oh i disagree.
The apostle came to know the truth that the gospel was also for the gentiles thru the help of the holyspirit, but it is simply wow to say that implies their gospel as different.

Did he only come to the realisation, was he not appointed by the Holy Spirit to take the truth to the gentile?