₦airaland Forum

9 Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition. 10 For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ 12 In this way, you let them disregard their needy parents. 13 And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

9 Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition. 10 For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ 12 In this way, you let them disregard their needy parents. 13 And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

Joagbaje:
That's a mistake most people do ,taking their first fruits to parents. Firsts fruits belongs to God. And first fruits is not for the pastor nor any giving. The only thing that belongs to a pastor are things specifically giving to the pastor. What people give in church belong to church and God.

9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

God2man:
Up till now, Anti-tithers are still opposed to the doctrine of tithe, again, anti-tithers are saying no to first fruit offering. How do they want the church to be developed? Do they want the church to expire? They claimed, tithe should be given to the poor, they are now saying that the first fruit is a fraud. I wonder what kind of christian we have on nairaland.God2man.

PA1982:
It does, indeed, but not in the way you might have intended.
Peter II is accepted by the majority of bibical scholars to be not written by Peter, but by a later author.
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

For Calvin's opinion:
http://euangelizomai..com/2007/09/calvin-on-authorship-of-2-peter.html

Rather long, but worth reading:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_green.pdf

Concerning the internal evidence, it should be obvious that the critics’ interpretations of historical references are based on assumption. Valid explanations can be given for each historical reference fitting in the first century. The dependence on stylistic differences is too subjective to place much emphasis on, and it can be explained as caused by use of an amanuensis for 1 Peter. The denial of personal references seems to display an unwarranted prejudice and plain unbelief on the part of the critic. Until actual, objective proof is shown to the contrary, this author will continue to consider the author of 2 Peter to be the apostle Peter himself.

At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required.

As in the case of The Acts of Paul and Thecla, we notice the great care exercised by second-century scholars to preserve the apostolic deposit both from pollution (by heretical writings) and from accretion (by pseudonymous writings).

It was in an atmosphere such as this that we are asked to assume 2 Peter originated. It is generally thought to have been published in the second quarter of the second century, and yet it was apparently accepted by Clement of Alexandria, Aristides, and Origen. In view of the attitude towards pseudepigraphy adopted by leaders in the early Church, it seems unlikely, to say the least, that men of this calibre would have accepted the Epistle if they thought it was a forgery.

. . . justification is the original ecumenical doctrine. The first time we meet justification, that is, in Galatians 2, it is about people from different cultures and traditions sharing table-fellowship on the basis of nothing other than their shared faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Once we relocate justification, moving it from the discussion of how people become Christians to the discussion of how we know that someone is a Christian, we have a powerful incentive to work together across denominational barriers. One of the sad ironies of the last four hundred years is that, at least since 1541, we have allowed disputes about how people become Christians – that which we thought was denoted by the language of justification – to divide us, when the doctrine of justification itself, urging us to unite across our cultural divides, went unheard. Not that there are not large and important problems in ecumenical relations. I am horrified at some of the recent Anglican/Roman statements, for instance, and on things like the Papacy, purgatory, and the cult of saints (especially Mary), I am as protestant as the next person, for (I take it) good Pauline reasons. But justification by faith tells me that if my Roman [added: i.e. Roman Catholic] neighbour believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead then he or she is a brother or sister, however much I believe them muddled, even dangerously so, on other matters.*

For Paul, the announcement or proclamation of Jesus as Lord was itself the ‘word of God’ which carried power. Putting together the various things he says about the preaching of the gospel, the word, and the work of the Spirit, we arrive at the following position: when Paul comes into a town and declares that Jesus is Lord, no doubt explaining who Jesus was, the fact and significance of his death and resurrection, and so on, then the Spirit is at work, mysteriously, in the hearts and minds of the listeners, so that, when some of them believe in Jesus, Paul knows that this is not because of his eloquence or clever argument but because the announcement of Jesus as Lord functions as (in later technical language) the means of grace, the vehicle of the Spirit. And, since the gospel is the heraldic proclamation of Jesus as Lord, it is not first and foremost a suggestion that one might like to enjoy a new religious experience. Nor is it even the take-it-or-leave-it offer of a way to salvation. It is a royal summons to submission, to obedience, to allegiance; and the form that this submission and obedient allegiance takes is of course faith. That is what Paul means by ‘the obedience of faith’. Faith itself, defined conveniently by Paul as belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, is the work of the Spirit, accomplished through the proclamation. ‘No-one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.’ But this already jumps ahead to my fourth point, and before we get there we must take in the second and third.

. . . he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

tbaba1234:
. . .
The problem is further aggravated by the precarious nature of Jewish religious writings - where strict methods for their transmission did not existent: . . . .

The problem is further aggravated by the precarious nature of Jewish religious writings - where strict methods for their transmission did not existent: . . .

yommyuk:
I respect men and women of God. But I oppose the way in which many (not all) of the popular evangelists (especially through the medium of television) ask for money.

WHAT THEY DO . . .

MAKE FALSE PROMISES

Though some people give money, blessings don't come as expected or promised by the evangelists. Then they feel depressed. Remember, it is not God who promised these blessings, but these evangelists. Please also remember that God cannot bless you (finance included) if you live in sin and disobedience. These evangelists never ask you to repent of your sins and set your heart right with God. How can God bless a disobedient child? He cannot because He cannot violate the principles of obedience and blessing which He has taught in His Word (the Bible). Think about it. God promises blessings only IF you OBEY His commandments. . . . .

Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to “obey” God or “obey” the Law.

naijajive:
. . . .
@ Enigma: what 16 books have you found?

Joagbaje:
@all
There are no laws and commandments for the church to be obeying. If you have references to them pls name them.
1. Thou shall ,

Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to “obey” God or “obey” the Law. Rather, we are called His obedient children:

Joagbaje:
We are not trying to obey God to bless us. Besides there is no law for us to obey. Rather we have the nature of God in us that cause us to do his will

Joagbaje:
Obey what na. What law ,what command? Is it say in the bible to "obey God" if there is quote it out . . .

Joagbaje:
The issue is what law or commandment are you obeying?

Joagbaje:
. . . .  what are the christian commandments for us to obey? . . .

Joagbaje:
This we are talking about the new testament . The church.

Joagbaje:
New testament began after Jesus death dude. Is that What did they teach u in your church? Oh sorry I forgot you are one of the sheep without a shepherd how sad.

newmi:
The Spirit of God is God's answer, God's response and God's solution.
John 14:15
15 If you[ really] love Me, you will keep( obey) My commands.
16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter( Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate, Strengthener, and Standby), that He may remain with you forever --