mbaemeka:

The keywords are 'partakers of the sufferings of christ' or 'afflictions for the GOSPEL'. The afflictions/persecutions/tribulations/impoverishment/incarceration/labelling etc. Should be for the GOSPEL'S sake and nothing else.

If we are partaking of christs sufferings then we ought to suffer what Christ suffered and nothing more and it has to be for the reason he suffered- which is because of his convictions.

Did Christ suffer sickness? Did Christ suffer 'poverty' by virtue of his birth or because of the gospel? Was Christ subject to the principles of the world?

Then we cannot teach people to accept such things except they are in tandem with the gospel or the preaching of it. Epaphroditus didn't take care of himself well and took ill BECAUSE of the work of the ministry. Paul told us that much and that's a worthy example.

DrummaBoy:

It is clear that the teachings of Napoleon Hill are a perverted dimension of the biblical faith. Mr Hill at some point in that chapter actually defined faith using the Mark 11:24 definition but it is clear that while the bible faith is a gift given to men by God, Hill faith is one that you work up to obtain your desires. In this, Hill and his counterparts were dishonest for they refused to give credit to the place, scriptures, were they got the concept of faith from. Their own type of faith is a faith anyone can exercise, Regardless of creed. They have simply widened the way to God, a way that leads to destruction.

Except for this, Hill and his New Thought friends are largely honest. They hardly claimed they were teaching biblical thoughts. The real dishonest folks are the WOF folks who took Hill's teachings, traced them to them to the bible and began to call it the Christian gospel. One thing Hill did not mention in his write up was the efficacy of these teachings. Make no doubt about it, the practice of these teaching produce tremendous results. Hill himself would never have been poor, selling millions in bestsellers, advising US Presidents, etc. It worked for his health too, living to 87years but could these teachings redeem his soul?

Testimonies abound of people using these principles to birth real health and wealth but are they Christian? Note also Hill frequent use of the word PRINCIPLE, it is actually from New Thoughts that WOF adherents get the word principles and laws from and not the bible. Because while scripture teaches principles, it shows that they apply to Christians mostly. Hill insist anyone can apply and get result from these principles.

When I was growing up, it was not unusual to see Muslims and stark agnostics with Hill's books. Some Christians also read them. With the aim, like he says, to get rich. Is that a Christian purpose. I really do hope that our readers have been able to see that the root of all these forces of faith that is producing tremendous results for folks in our time is as actually metaphysical. These are what eastern religionist teach their people to make success of life and the worst part of it is that these things work. Deceiving the gullible to adopt them as religious practices.

The gospel calls Christians to live by faith and not by result. The biblical faith is miles apart and different from the faith of Mr Hill and WOF. The Christian faith comes by hearing God's word and not by vibration in the subconscious that came through auto suggestions. We have inadvertantly introduced New Age teachings into the Christian Church without knowing it. Today, Sunday, millions of people will listen to a minister teach them Napoleon Hill's gospel, backed up with testimonies of results, thinking they have listened to Christ gospel. These folks are simply deceived.

I trust that our readers have comprehended and are able to distinguish true biblical faith from these auto suggested sort of faith.

trustman:

[size=16pt]MY SUBMISION ON F1: FAITH IN FAITH OR FAITH AS A FORCE[/size]

On Napoleon Hill - 

A look at Napoleon Hill's statement (or is it definition?) on FAITH shows that he refers to FAITH as a state of mind which may be induced, or created, by affirmation or repeated instructions to the subconscious mind, through the principle of autosuggestion. 
Notice he said it is induced, or created by affirmation or repeated instructions to the subconscious mind. 
Notice also how it is done - through the principle of autosuggestion. Now, autosuggestion is defined by the dictionary to be "influencing of one's own attitudes, behavior, or physical condition by mental processes other than conscious thought: self-hypnosis". 
In all these: affirmation, repeated instructions (to the subconscious mind), autosuggestion, the focus is on the individual and what he can achieve using the 'mind'. 

According to him "Repetition of affirmation of orders to your subconscious mind is the only known method of voluntary development of the emotion of faith". 
So, to him, repetitive affirmations (declarations) to the subconscious mind develops faith. But how did the Bible say faith comes?
When he says "All thoughts which have been ... ... mixed with faith, begin immediately to translate themselves into their physical equivalent or counterpart" he means the actions in the mind bring about the physical realities the person who uses this faith principle desires. 
So to him, the subconscious mind is that through which "any desire you wish (is) translated into its physical, or monetary equivalent". He goes on then to say that it is "in a state of expectancy or BELIEF that transmutation will actually take place"
In all these, it is man that is at work in his mind to create whatever realities he wants. 
To Napoleon Hill FAITH is what brings about the desired realities. Not faith in God but faith in FAITH. Just develop faith, exercise it, use it and you will get what you want. 
He says also that "This is why you are asked to write out a statement of your major purpose, or Definite Chief Aim, commit it to memory, and repeat it, in audible words, day after day, until these vibrations of sound have reached your subconscious mind". 
So we see here that 'vibrations of sounds' getting to the subconscious are what is relied upon. Do you see how this ties up with the 'power of the spoken word' of WoF?

He states that "this formula is a law of Nature which no man has yet been able to explain. It has baffled the scientist of all ages. The psychologists have named this law " autosuggestion", and let it go at that ... ... ... The name by which one calls this law is of little importance. The important fact about it is ... ... ... it WORKS for the glory and success of mankind, if it is used constructively". 
We see here that the faith he talks about is a formula or a 'law of Nature'. It is for the 'glory' of mankind. To him the name by which the law is called is of little importance, so the user of the 'law' can use any suitable name to make it fit into his belief system as long the formula is still followed and applied. So the WoF can simply change the name to suit their Christian bias but still retain essentially the same principles. 
As evidence of those he claim used the power of FAITH he put at the head "the Nazarene" apparently referring to Jesus Christ (?). He went on to mention Christianity's basis as FAITH even though he says "people may have perverted, or misinterpreted the meaning of this great force". 
To him then FAITH is a "great force". 

He claims the achievements of Christ said to be "miracle" were done by FAITH. He says: "If there are any such phenomenon as "miracles" they are produced only through the state of the mind known as FAITH!". To him: "some teachers of religion, and many who call themselves Christians, neither understand nor practice FAITH". 
So it is the state of the mind (FAITH) that produces miracles. Even Christians don't understand FAITH as he (Napoleon  Hill) does. 

This Napoleon Hill's 'FAITH' can be demonstrated by anyone. Mahatma Gandhi , of India used its 'power' in "influencing two hundred million minds" and Charles Schwab of the United States Steel Corporation also used "his FAITH, his DESIRE, his IMAGINATION, his PERSISTENCE" to create the giant organization. 

We see here that the 'FAITH' Napoleon Hill talks about is created from the human mind. Anyone can use it irrespective of his religious (or irreligious) inclination. This Napoleon Hill's  'FAITH' does not look like TRUST in God or His Word. It is man generated and man-centered. Biblical faith is God-centered and it is God's Word that builds up faith in the believer. Unfortunately the 'teaching' of this man - Napoleon Hill - has found expressions in the church through pastors who have imbibed its philosophy. Hill himself claimed that guides from other "dimension" gave him "supreme secret" to the world. Who can these ones from other "dimension" be? Angels or demons? What new thing - "supreme secret" - is being offered to mankind that the Bible didn't give us? 

alentyno:

There is no point arguing this one with you because your definition of church (ie the physical structure is more important than the spiritual structure) and mine (the spiritual structure is and will always be more important than the physical structure anytime anyday!) are both parallel and opposite.



I believe in holy eucharist, holy penance, holy orders, baptism, confirmation etc. Read my sentence again it says 'some'. If you still confused consult the dictionary to check out the meaning.
Yes.what is mightily wrong in your eyes is I alentyno refuse to be stupid in reciting 'the hail mary' 53 times while I only say 'the lord's prayer' only 6 times in the course of praying the rosary and yet still foolishly and dumbly claim that I reverence Jesus christ more than mary. Its dumb.

2. I can't greet catholics 'ave maria' 90 percent of the time I run into them thus rarely saying 'praise God' and still claim the reverence I have for Jesus is greater than that for mary. Delusion is the last thing I will ever buy in my life.



If for example I was born into an RCCG family and I grow up to know Jesus christ, believe in him, live according to his standards, abhor pride of life and lust of the flesh, be steadfast and prayerful all my life, pay my tithe, give alms to the poor, strive with all my might to live a holy (and thus achieve it in the process) and last but not the least win souls for Him through evangelization. Remember I did all these without believing in the rosary, pulgatory nor praying to saints and all that due to my christain background. If I die today(in a holy state) where will I go? Heaven or hell?
Answer this question or don't ever quote me again!.......syncan, candour, pastoroluT salC, francistony, babestell et all you're needed for this particular question



The bolded just won award for 'the most delusioned lie of the century'. Clap for yourself


Answer this---- is it ALL OF THEM? Ie 100% of all pentecostals? Remember if you dont have any answer, then forget about deviating from the question thus explaining what you were not asked. Don't just quote me!


I know you're trying all you can to drive home your point but my dear sire even the devil knows that the only reason why you have been able to indulge in debates with atheists and protestants is mostly due your diligence in studying the bible.
Remember the catholic church takes nothing less than 2 years to cover the bible due to the fact that their approach towards God's word is that of a kid who was given the license to eat a plate of rice yet the kid prefers to 'count-eat' it grain by grain. If you doubt the stat, ask your priest


You need to be one. Your sincerity and eagerness to study God's word can't just waste away like that!

italo:

How many churches did Jesus found?

Are you saying the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines?

Can God's Church teach false doctrine? dogma

A member of RCCG can go to heaven if he lives right according to his conscience...if he doesn't willfully reject the Catholic Church [s]despite knowing that it is the one true Church[/s] despite the church refusing to prove their manipulative and self-serving dogmas true.

What about non-Christians who do same...do they go to heaven or hell?

alentyno: The answer to the question is in Romans 2:12
Listen People sin against the revelation
they have, not by the revelation they do not have.
God will judge people according to the light they
have (1:19-20), not according to the light they do
not possess.
God operates under no false distinction. There is
no advantage to the Jew for merely possession of
the Law when it comes to how God judges sin. He
will judge both Jew and Gentile equally and by a
fair standard. God’s judgment measures lives
based on actuality. In this case,
not that their condemnation and perdition will be
illegal, or not in due course of law; but it will not
proceed upon, or according to the law of Moses,
they never had; and much less for not believing in Christ, of whom they never heard; but their
perdition will be for their sins committed without
the law of Moses, against the law of nature: their
not having the written law of Moses will be no
plea in their favour, or be a reason why they
should not be condemned; their persons will not
be regarded as with or without the law, but their
sins committed by them, to which facts their
consciences will bear witness

100% of protestants are taught partial truth. If you think even 1% teaches the fullness of truth, show me the 1%...?[/q
uote]
Define 'partial truth'.


[quote]You say we cover the bible in 2yrs. I say thats good...since it took Jesus 3yrs to preach the gospel.

protestants hardly ever cover the bible.

If you insist they do then tell me the duration it takes them...?

You believe that a Catholic's sincerity and bible study are wasted if he is not in Catholic Charismatic Renewal?

I have given clear and short answers to your questions. Now let's see if you can answer me the same way.

Syncan: alentyno, you brought me to this thread, how may I be of help?... ehm...That's apart from measuring the respect I have for my Dad against the one I have for my mum, based on the number of times I call their names per day.

alentyno:
anyways you saw the question I asked.

alentyno:
anyways you saw the question I asked.

DrummaBoy:

At the risk of being misunderstood by you, I will still like to shed some light on the errors of your thinking.

There is no such thing as "subject to the principles of this world" in all the bible. Such a thing a New Age doctrine; it has no foundation in the word of God. This New Age or eastern doctrine teaches that believers should not be subject to the caprices of life or principles of this world. Rather we should use God's power within us to make life subject to us. It teaches that we, not God, should determine our own destiny. We cannot allow things to just hit us down; rather we should bring our world under our control by our confession and by our beliefs. I repeat that this doctrine is demonic and from the very depths of hell.

Before I proceed, let me offer a balance.

Christians can suffer persecution for their faith in Christ. Christians can also suffer illness and poverty because they dwell in a fallen body and are subject to the economy of this world. In spite of this reality, God is merciful to the Christian because God is first of all our Father. I am a father; and in spite of my weakness, I know my good plans for my kids. How much more God and Jesus testifies to this: that God will grant our requests. So what happens in case of sickness and poverty? The truth is that the number one anti dote to poverty is not faith or confession. Its plain hard work. If Mr Christian spent his youth in school, grabbed a good degree and trusted God to order his steps, he would not suffer in life. He would not be poor. God would ensure he is well taken care of. Simple. Just like any other non Christian.

If Mr Christian does not abuse his body, does exercises, eats well and trust God, he would not be sick.

However, in spite of Mr Christian's hard work and good eating, Mr Christian can still hit life's visiccitude. What should he do then? Mr Christian must trust God. Please notice that the unbeliever can do all that the Christian can do, except to trust God. That's what distinguishes them. If Mr Christian then hits challenges concerning his health and wealth, what does he do? HE SHOULD TRUST GOD!!!

So that the New Testament has made abundant provision for the poor Christian. A Christian who was not irresponsible but suddenly hits financial challenge must have his wants supplied by the brethren in church (2cor 8: 13-14). Our abundance must supply his want. When he is OK, he could then give to others who lack too. There is nothing wrong with a poor Christian but there is everything wrong with a stingy church. This is the recommendation of the NT!

What happens to an ill Christian? James 5, we call the elders of the church who should pray for him. The prayer of faith will save the sick.

God is sovereign and it pleases him to deal with us all, in this path of sanctification, in the way he chooses. Through any trial he deems fit. The minute we begin to choose what we want as challenges or suffering - saying we want persecution and not health or financial challenge - we cease to make him Lord over us; rather we become a clay that dictates to the Porter. That is the tragedy of this New Age doctrine called Word of Faith!

And, yes, the Christian suffering can include persecution for the faith but it is not limited to that. The NT has abundant evidence that Christians can be poor. Lazarus was poor and Jesus spoke well about him. Jesus referred to himself as poor, having no roof over himself or a place to lay his head. Jesus identified with the poor in Matthew 25. James advised we should not despise the poor. Peter and Paul differed in ministry but agreed to take care of poor Christians in Galatians 2. Many Christians were ill, including Timothy and Epaphroditus. Job was poor and ill. In their bid to credit their gospel, WOF despises the poor and shames the sick. WOF hates Job with a passion but in spite of their hatred, Job remains a leading prophet of scripture God said he spoke well of Him.

The subtle distinction between the Christian faith and the Word of Faith is that the former submits to God; while the latter dictates to God. The former consider God as Lord; the latter makes God an errand boy and transforms man to god. The former is the truth of the gospel; the latter is New Age and it is down right demonic.

mbaemeka stop the deception!!!

Syncan:


Those who, through no fault of their own, do
not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but
who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions
to do his will as they know it through the
dictates of their conscience - those too may
achieve eternal salvation. 337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God
can lead those who, through no fault of their
own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith
without which it is impossible to please him, the
Church still has the obligation and also the
sacred right to evangelize all men." 338


This is the teaching of the Catholic church, do you know this?

italo:

What about non-Christians who do same...do they go to heaven or hell?

alentyno: The answer to the question is in Romans 2:12
Listen People sin against the revelation
they have, not by the revelation they do not have.
God will judge people according to the light they
have (1:19-20), not according to the light they do
not possess.
God operates under no false distinction. There is
no advantage to the Jew for merely possession of
the Law when it comes to how God judges sin. He
will judge both Jew and Gentile equally and by a
fair standard. God’s judgment measures lives
based on actuality. In this case,
not that their condemnation and perdition will be
illegal, or not in due course of law; but it will not
proceed upon, or according to the law of Moses,
they never had; and much less for not believing in Christ, of whom they never heard; but their
perdition will be for their sins committed without
the law of Moses, against the law of nature: their
not having the written law of Moses will be no
plea in their favour, or be a reason why they
should not be condemned; their persons will not
be regarded as with or without the law, but their
sins committed by them, to which facts their
consciences will bear witness

Syncan:


838 "The Church knows that she is joined in
many ways to the baptized who are honored by
the name of Christian, but do not profess the
Catholic faith in its entirety or have not
preserved unity or communion under the
successor of Peter." 322

Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." 323

With the Orthodox Churches , this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the
fullness that would permit a common
celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." 324

This is the teaching of the Catholic church, do you know this?

The church Jesus christ created is WE (the united body of christians worldwide who serve Him in truth and in spirit) not 'the buildings and the tiles'. Get this into your brain

italo:
1

alentyno:
2

syncan:
3

alentyno:
For a start the bolded is only in print. Apart from the CCRN I have never (despite having worshiped in 3 separate dioceses) seen where we as a church went out to evangelize.
Even if I never knew such things were in the 'Canon Code of Conducts', I knew it had to be so!
Here is the proof

Syncan:

What do you understand by "to evangelize"?

Now, that was from the Catechism of the Catholic church and not any "canon code of conduct". If you want to make accusations against the church you claim to belong to, at least you should know what she teaches.

nannymcphee:

pls ur posts has nothing to do with this thread, this is akin to derailing

This thread is about word of faith & not the catholic canon or dogmas

Thanks

mbaemeka: The greatest challenge we are faced with is the presence of ignorant folks that have arrogated the right to pick and choose what they think is demonic and what is not. For some of these ignorant folks if it matches their experiences it is truth (regardless of it is word-based or not) and if it doesn't match their experiences (even if it is very word-based) it is demonic.

mbaemeka: God told Paul he was to suffer for the gospel. God didn't tell mbaemeka that he was to suffer for the gospel. God told me to prosper for the gospel. Amen.

mbaemeka: I also believe in suffering for the gospel but maybe not as some of you would have us believe. Indeed, I too suffer lack from time because of one need or the other in God's house.

We are only faced with one mission and that is to show them as much of the word of God as possible and pray that the Holy Spirit; the master teacher, will help convey these truths to them and if not, that the other folks whose faiths might be shaky would not be swayed by their deception and gross ignorance.

Joshua 1:8 was very instructive. It teaches that we are to keep speaking the word of God consistently- every day and night so that we would observe to do all that is written therein. It says that by so doing 'we' and not 'God' will make our way prosperous and then have good success.

Merely looking at the trail of events shows where the cart is and where the horse should be. First, we Speak the words. Next, the speaking causes us to observe what is written (e.g being diligent, working hard, praying etc). And then by so doing we make our way prosperous and we experience good success.

It is very clear that the speaking of the word precedes the hardwork as against the "speaking the word, confessions or faith doesn't make one successful. . .plain hardwork does" as these ignoramuses would have us believe. Also interesting is the fact that these notion isn't singular all through scripture and was repeated ad nauseam almost verbatim from the OT to the NT. It therefore beggars belief that some would call it a new age teaching and even go even further to call it demonic.

In Psalms 1:1-3, The very same teaching is expressed in clear words- the speaking of the word yields the observance which in turn yields the prosperity. The Psalmist even makes a stack comparison between the believer and the unbeliever in this instance and even brazenly declares that the unbeliever will not act so and thereby not experience it (vv.4). So we are forced to ask ourselves who to believe: the word or the ignoramuses- and of course, your guess is as good as mine.

On the notion of wealth, these ignoramuses claim "there is nothing wrong with a poor christian; the only thing that is wrong is a stingy church". While I agree with the latter aspect of the sentence, I beg to differ with the first and that is because it is not scriptural. A poor christian is as much as dangerous as a sinful one and the reason is simple- they act as though Christ died for nothing. Of course, it is possible for one to live as though poor because of the gospel. That is commendable and similar to the decisions of bulk of the early Christians. But it is a lie for anyone to claim that God makes anyone poor as a way to test them. That is very unscriptural and demonic.

God has given us his word to go by. He has told us what to expect and what to reject out-rightly. We know that poverty, diseases and sicknesses are not from God same way we know sin is not from him. The same way we are taught to flee from sin is the same way we are to flee from the consequences of sin of which poverty, diseases and death are 3 of the chief consequences.

Without a doubt the NT does mention that a christian could be poor but not that the Christian SHOULD be- it is a matter of choice. Lazarus (who wasn't a Christian at the time Jesus spoke of him) was poor and remained poor in the eyes of the rich man even while at Abraham's bossom. The rich man that died and went to hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his hand into water and let him get a taste of it. It is actually laughable how the rich man didn't ask Abraham to do so himself, instead he asked him to tell Lazarus- the same poor man Lazarus that he knew while on earth .

Speaking of Jesus, he was not poor as some of these ignoramuses assert neither did he refer himself as so. He had a house (John 1:37), and was responsible for feeding so many people during his stay on earth. He paid his taxes as and when due and he had a viable means of livelihood and so did his other disciples.

Certainly, he identified with the poor and encouraged that they should be helped even as his disciples continued to teach so. I am aware of a lot of charitable works that many of today's churches are involved in to help the poor. Some of these works make the state appear incompetent and we are admonished as christians to support instead of defame them as some ignorant folks have done to their own peril.

Another worrisome idea being peddled amongst these ignorant folks is the "many Christians were sick" doctrine. That is an outright lie and an insult to the cross of Jesus. Indeed, the notion of sicknesses was expected to be an anomaly that James had to ask the brethren if any sick person was still amongst them. Then he recommended the use of the prayer of faith by the elders. The isolated instances of Timothy and Epaphroditus only shows us the importance of proper hygiene even as we live by faith, for we are not ignorant of the devices of the devil.

Speaking of Job, his life's testimony is ample proof that God can use any seemingly unfortunate situation to bring forth his goodness as long as we stay true to our faith in him- by speaking and acting his word. Job's patience and faith exemplifies exactly what Paul taught in Hebrews 6:12 and that is exactly what we endeavor to teach others as against the "your reward is ONLY in heaven gospel" that some try to sell.

From the foregoing we can tell that even though life or the devil can throw different challenges at us all regardless of our faiths. We are responsible for the way we choose to react to the challenges. While some pretend that they leave everything in God's sovereign hands; we can tell how feigned such acts are as we see this same lot talk about how plain hard work overrides the meditation of God's word. For others, they have known to rightfully divide the word and thereby knowing which situations require praying, using the name of Jesus, speaking the word or letting them go with the consciousness that they are already more than conquerors through it all. And in each situation this group always gives the glory and thanks to God through Jesus- the author and finisher of faith.

In conclusion, the obvious distinction between these Christians who act their faiths and the ignoramuses is that the former have believed and meditated so much on the word of God that the results are already evident in their lives-they prosper, dwell in health, heal the sick, feed the poor and show forth the fruits of the spirit- love, joy, peace etc. While the latter, rationalize the word so much that they have no faith and therefore do not act on the word. They in its stead, house bitterness, envy, jealousy and hatred for the former just like Joseph's brothers did him. They are required for the formers promotion and advancement (albeit oblivious to them).

BabaGnoni:

With hindsight, "Elijah wanted to die" should never have gone into that post,
nevertheless the post is still watertight with "Elijah wanted to die" removed
and takes nothing away from the post nor diminishes the Elijah defence message therein.

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture;
and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained,
so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
- William Symington
Scottish engineer, inventor and the builder of the first practical steamboat

DrummaBoy:

1. I suspected it. Thanks for being honest though. My advice: read that document even if it will be the last you will ever read from Nora. It way beyond false report. It provides further documents you can verify with. You won't find that in Lakes own books.

2. The question was whether Christ operated healing "schools" not whether healing can occur though believers or not.

Image123:

i'll oblige you and read your book or document when i have the time. i can assure you, i've heard Dr. lake himself and i believe him above the contrary reports, thanks.
The answer was that Jesus and the apostles gathered people to heal them. That is what a healing school supposedly does.

Image123:

i'll oblige you and read your book or document when i have the time. i can assure you, i've heard Dr. lake himself and i believe him above the contrary reports, thanks.

The answer was that Jesus and the apostles gathered people to heal them. That is what a healing school supposedly does.

mbaemeka

nora544:

You know that this Dr lake died 1935 and at time he was in america, please stop to tell such lies.

He has never and I say never a University degree!

DrummaBoy:

OK. Thank you Image.

Another question please: Can we authoritatively say that Jesus ever "gathered people to heal them?" Can we find any biblical account for this? Are you saying Jesus gathered people exclusively for healing exercises like these WOF chaps do in their healing schools?

This is an all in one question.

Candour:

While i think we've said all there is to say on this issue, its important to note that both divides are guilty of this idea. In fact you said something along this line that is the below

We all including you and all mog must know this. For instance, how do you explain all the disciples dying violent deaths except John?

Joshua didn't say "word of God". He said "book of the law"

Joshua 1:8 KJV
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

This scripture speaks exclusively to the Jews because it talks about obeying the laws of Moses diligently otherwise there would he punishments. It was a works based admonition. Does any Christian observe and obey the laws of Moses carefully and diligently today?

What is the prosperity the psalmist was talking about there? Is it the same thing like what the world (and the modern church) call prosperity today?

What do you make of this scripture below?

Proverbs 30:7-9 KJV
Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: [8] Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: [9] Lest I be full, and deny thee , and say, Who is the Lord ? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain .

Do you think the writer was speaking faithless words?

Also, What does Christ mean by this?

Matthew 5:45 KJV
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Does God discrimate in the sending of his blessings to the earth and the peoples on it? Methinks this explains why even hardened atheists enjoy the prosperity and riches which the 'church' is chasing madly after today.

You call people ignoramuses but you make some ignorant contradictions in your own post. Contrast the statement in black with the one in blue. How do they agree? How did the early Christians 'live as though they were poor'? The scripture even records that those in Macedonia who gave, also had deep poverty.

2 Corinthians 8:2 KJV
How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.

What is wealth? How do you measure it?

What is poverty? How do you measure it?

How do you classify the early Christians?

We were asked to flee from sin, not poverty, diseases and death because no human being needs to be told to flee from poverty, diseases and death. Its inbuilt in us all. All humans are wired to hate them. Christians, Muslims and atheists all hate these three phenomena. Sin isn't in the same class because the natural man loves to sin. Sin is 'pleasurable'. Infact the sons of Adam are wired to enjoy sin.

Pls don't equate them to each other or put them in the same class for that is misleading.

@the bolded is all the truth we need to know. A Christian could indeed be poor and no where in the bible is it remotely suggested that such is "dangerous to the gospel". That is at best a vain statement and at worst a horribly deceptive lie. If we agree with the quote, honesty demands we refer to the early Christians whom you said decided to be poor for the gospel as "dangerous to the gospel they worked tirelessly to propagate".

Image123:
Yes, search the scriptures. i'll like to be of help if you don't find.