₦airaland Forum

Gombs, I strongly believe Lobeez is SirJohn. Use that insanely intelligent techy mind of yours to prove my hypothesis right

As for the Public rebuke crew. Maybe you should start by telling us how Eve had sex with a serpent. And if you believe she didn't, why not publicly rebuke the oaf that mouthed off such gross inanity?

Trustman and Vooks

I wish you both will understand Paul. In Acts 10 & 11 the bible says Peter preached and ate with Gentiles, and when Jewish Christians heard this they weren't happy with him and they let him know. Peter defended himself citing that God himself approved of his actions so the Jewish Circumcision group backed down for a while.

Even after that, the Jewish Christians didn't pass the information around that Gentiles were to be saved too, so the rest of the scattered Jewish Christians in and around Antioch et al kept preaching to ONLY Jews- this is how we can tell that the circumcision group didn't totally accept what Peter had said to them earlier.

News began to filter through in Jerusalem that alot of Jews in Antioch believed the message of the gospel and became converted so the leadership sent Barnabas to go there to restructure and reorganise them properly. Barnabas, seeing that he needed someone who could penetrate such a Gentile society without much fuss decided to look for Paul in Tarsus (because Paul was eloquent and well versed in Greek philosophy). They preached there for about a year to both Jews and Gentiles.

It was in Antioch that a prophecy was given about an impending famine so the brethren therein raised money to send to the brethren in Judea/ Jerusalem and Paul and Barnabas were the one's trusted with the duty of taking the money there. They didn't meet Peter at that point because he was in jail courtesy King Herod. Shortly after they returned to Antioch after delivering the money.

When they got back to Antioch they began going to various synagogues preaching the gospel to all and sundry which polarized the audience in that Jews didn't accept the message while the Gentiles accepted it and urged the men to keep preaching the gospel to them. At the end of the day the Jews, filled with anger and jealousy ensured that both men were kicked out of the city till the gist got to the ears of the power that be in Jerusalem and as such, the council was scheduled.

During that meeting Paul and Barnabas argued with the same circumcision group that had done same to Peter and during the heat Peter stood up to recount the same story he had told the same men years before. In other words, Peter sided with Paul and Barnabas. So James concluded that Paul and co were free to keep preaching to the Gentiles without imposing much Jewish laws on them. With that Paul and Barnabas left fot Antioch.

Peter joined them a short while later preaching and eating with the Gentiles and all was rosy until Silas, Judas and the other prophets from Jerusalem came to deliver James letter and encourage the brothers. When they came, Paul noticed that this same Peter that had defended himself twice (once in Jerusalem alone after Cornelius and later at the Jerusalem council) began to shift away from the Gentiles and didn't want to be seen eating with them. The leaders like Silas and Judas joined him too in the hypocrisy and even Barnabas was not spared. So Paul did the needful by correcting Peter in front of them all and Peter didn't argue because he knew Paul was right seeing that he had just defended Paul moments ago in Jerusalem.

Sorry for my epistle, but can you see why Paul had to confront Peter? Even at that, did you notice he called him no names neither did he mock him in front of the other leaders. He simply corrected him so that they too could learn the lesson. It has nothing to do with what some of you do in the name of correcting an error especially as none of you are leaders. But if you feel you are right despite what scriptures say, ride on.

I rest my case on this issue.

trustman:
One undeniable fact is that the rebuke became public knowledge well beyond the initial group that heard it. Millions of ordinary believers now came to know about it. What this should tell us about the mind of God regarding ERROR is that it should be EXPOSED no matter who committed it.

I don't believe anyone on this thread has said anything against exposing an error. It is fine to do so especially when you are sure (by the word) that what you are exposing is an error. While at it, it is advisable to follow the bible ordained way by leaving out the aspects of defaming the characters or making prevarications concerning them as is unbecoming of a christian.

vooks:
Simple questions
1. Did the visiting Jews eat with the Gentiles BEFORE the rebuke?

Nope they didn't. And Your point is?

As for your post above (in blue font), there's alot you need to learn about Brother James. Maybe you should study that book of Galatians well and then the book of 1 Corinthians. You may learn a few things.

Kenny4lyfe:
Fixed
So what's the fuss all about again?

Please help me ask him?

christemmbassey:
was Abraham an Igboman?

Was he a Jew?

vooks:
If Paul telling Galatians that Peter erred and he corrected him publicly is not publishing it, then I don't know what is.

See after the epistle was read, they knew Peter succumbed to his fears of the Circumcision and behaved hypocritically. They knew the error,consequences, the erring apostle and the correcting apostle. I may also add that had he not described this incidence, they would not have known about it

Knowing about the incidence was not Paul's intention. Someone says to Paul "James said without circumcision we Gentiles are not truly saved". Paul says "thats wrong no matter who says that. In fact while I was in Antioch I had to correct Peter infront of the other leaders when he suggested the same thing. This is not what the Lord taught me". Paul is clearly telling them to disregard the circumcision debate. Period.

And also when you say 'publicly' it depends on what you mean. When James told Paul about forbidding meat sacrificed to idols, he said it in 'public' I.e to the hearing of all the other leaders in the meeting. But he didn't say it publicly to the hearing of 'floor members' of the new Christian faith.

There are just some things you don't say in front of babes.

vooks:

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
mbaemeka, I charge you to think
1. From verse 14, the THEY THAT WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY are the THEM ALL
2. Verse 13 tells you what they did; they WITHDREW and separated themselves from the Gentiles just like Peter. This means they were eating with the Gentiles and then they stopped
3. If the visiting Jews ate with the Gentiles and Peter ate with the Gentiles,then what freaked him?
Verse 12 is mighty clear; it is the visiting Jews that prompted Peter to withdraw

What does this have to do with anything I have said? I don't know why you are overlooking the very obvious facts again.

1. In vs 12 Peter withdrew himself fearing THEM.
2. The THEM joined him and acted like hypocrites.
3. Barnabas joined THEM as well as few other Jews that hung around Paul (all leaders).
4. Paul corrected Peter infront of THEM ALL because Peter was like you said the 'Chief culprit'.

Do you get it now? The THEM referred to the CHIEF MEN that came from James as well as Barnabas and a few other Jews- all leaders.

christemmbassey:
i was not refering to you when i posted to disagree with Hagin's position on the monetary tithe fraud, which to me amounted to double speak and dishonesty. But d truth in dat post hit ur otherwise dead conscience, now u're sounding as if i invited you for any discusions on tithe. If u like theophany or theophony,, when it suit ur greed you run to RC inventions, when it does nt you accuse them of worshiping Mary. Bro theophany can not defend tithe crime, try harder.

OK.

christemmbassey:
you can run away bc you have nothing to defend ur crime(monetary tithe collection from christian) dats why you must LIE and twist every time you want to defend d tithe scam. Bro, Melchi 1ST OF ALL GAVE ABRAM BREAD AND WINE TO ELICIT D TITHE OF WAR SPOILS HE GOT, he did not give after recieving tithe. Stop this lie lie and twist twist, tithe is a BIG FRAUD.

See how misplaced the strawman employed is. As though the import of my post was in addressing who gave what first. And again, I am not running away from anything. I just don't see the reason why all the 1000 threads on tithing didn't make you lot come to the conclusion that another man's liberty should not affect your own conscience. I don't for example, see how, me that gives my own tithe ended up being a thief and a liar to you. The same you that claimed Melchizedek needed tithes for his walk on earth, that Jesus didn't pay tithes while on earth and how that Isaac didn't pay tithes yet you can not explain how Jacob learned to do it if, GrandPa Abraham did it only once.

vooks:
You are softening. God is good and greatly to be praised!

Paul corrected the erring guys by correcting the chief culprit and the instigator before them.
Paul publishes this years after to millions
So the whole world knows Peter stumbled
Facts are terribly stubborn

Paul wasn't publishing anyone's error to anybody let alone his church in Galatia. The Church in Galatia were having a similar issue which was in the same vein instigated by the same Brother James from Jerusalem (or his people). The body of Christ at the point revered James so much and many allude this to the fact that he was Jesus' brother. So when the Galatian church complained to Paul that a "Higher authority" said circumcision was required for Gentiles to truly be saved Paul had to refer them to a similar instance when he had to correct Peter (one whom Jews also revered). Merely gleaming through the Book of Galatians you would see Paul making statements like "those who seemed to be Pillars" and so on adding nothing to his message as he got his from Jesus himself.

So Paul correcting Peter was an example he sited in trying to show the Gentiles that he knew more about the Gentile salvation than the so called "pillars". How again does this compare with the idiocy that some of you employ? Especially when none of you 'Pastor' any church or lead any followership whatsoever and instead of taking cue from the lord himself you raise bible portions that you barely understand to support such folly.

vooks:
Verse 2 AGAIN!!!
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Before them ALL means the chief culprit was reprimanded publicly. Or what's your definition of publicly?

You still don't get it. 'Them all' referred to the Leaders I.e Silas and Barnabas as well as other Chief men from James. Period.

I can see you edited your post but still ended it with the same inanity that I have sought to address since time immemorial. The OTHERS and THEM ALL were not floor members. Remember this was like a house and not necessarily in the synagogue (hence the "eating") so it was the Chief men (leaders) that joined in with Peter. Paul had to correct them all because they are the same ones who will go about preaching the gospel. He wanted them to do so devoid of hypocrisy.

vooks:
Negro Please,
I have also studied deeply over the same. Read my favorite commentary, Cambridge Bible here;
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/galatians/2.htm
Turns out my hunch was right, Peter's epic hypocrisy is that he did this AFTER the Council in Jerusalem

Galatians is an epistle to the churches in Galatia. Paul mentions the Antioch incidence to the church(es) in Galatia. I never said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia but that he shared this thorough and public rebuke with Galatians and by extension the world( you and me). Paul published to millions Peter's error. mbaemeka finds this revolting, I find a sound example that ought to be followed. You do realize that we can take off this incidence from Galatians WITHOUT diluting Paul's message do you?

Commentaries aside,let's THINK. Peter's action provoked others into hypocrisy. Which others? I hazard that others are Jews already in Antioch. The verses again;

Galatians 2:12-14

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


1. The THEM ALL of verse 14 can't possibly refer to the THEM of verse 13 sidestepping the intermediate THEM of verse 13
2. The THEM of verse 13 is the 'OTHER JEWS' who dissembled

So the other Jews who dissembled MUST have been eating with the Gentiles before and ONLY stopped when Peter stopped.
Could these have been the ones who were sent from Jerusalem? Of course not because if they readily ate with the Gentiles, then Peter could not have been spooked

So my broda, don't attempt to restrict OTHERS to those who were sent from jerusalem because that is plain nonsense and baseless not to mention illogical.

Again with the warped logic initiated by the caprice to rebut the post without reading thoroughly to see the grey areas that are lost on you.

Paul and Barnabas are in Antioch. Peter comes to join in and is cohabiting with the Gentiles there in. Shortly after, Jews from Jerusalem come and Peter shifts away from the Gentiles. The Jewish brethren join him in the hypocrisy and even Barnabas, Paul's companion is equally swayed and begins to follow through. Paul sees the hypocrisy and corrects Peter in front of them all because:

1. Peter is a leader and he preached to Gentiles first.
2. Peter knew the truth but acted otherwise.
3. Peter's action made the other Jews (that respected him) to begin to copy him.

So Paul corrected them all by correcting the man who began the hypocrisy- Peter.

There's now a similar problem in Galatia. Jewish folks have infiltrated the Gentile camp and have begun sowing seeds of discord by mixing the law with grace. The Galatians are swayed by the brethren because these same brethren came from almighty James! So Paul is telling his church "there is nothing like mixing law and grace no matter who tells you that. In fact, in Antioch I corrected Peter when he acted like a hypocrite because he being a jew acts like a Gentile but then tried to force Gentiles to do what Jews do. I corrected him because Christ places no such bondage on us"

That's the lesson we are to learn there and it was communicated by a leader to his church.

trustman:
Theophany?
Uhm!!

I don't believe I minced words. You can open another thread if you please. We will derail this one if I was to delve there.

Goshen360:
Please, where did Jesus PAID tithe while on earth?

1. The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. If Jesus didn't condemn it but instead encourage people to do it, then it must mean that he too did it or else he would have been a hypocrite and he was not.

2. The bible says Jesus fulfilled the law. If he was fulfilling the law he must have obeyed the tithing aspect of the law after all, by Jewish customs Jesus was already a son of the law at age 12. I don't need to tell you all it entails to qualify as the son of the law.

vooks:
goD mbaemeka before whom Christ's knees will bow and beg to take you home,thinking is a free gift even to satanists. Please use it
How would a private rebuke to Peter help the Jews who were with Paul the likes of Barnabas who were equally affected by the hypocrisy.

THEM ALL means all those who witnessed and followed Peter's hypocrisy and probably the thoroughly embarrassed Gentiles as well. Either way, that was not a private rebuke

You want to know who were sent from James? Study Acts 15 and see who were sent to deliver the first Christian epistle:
Acts 15:22,25-26 King James Version (KJV)
22 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:......

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I can see you are mischievously attempting to read between the line and claim that it is Holy Spirit revelation who told you that Peter was rebuked before the apostles and elders AWAY from the holloi poloi. Negro try hard and come up with a more intelligent excuse for covering your goD Oyaks

Read again
Galatians 2:13-14
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

See the 'THEM ALL' of verse 14 are 'THEY' that 'WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY' and they include the 'OTHER JEWS' of verse 13 among whom we had Barnabas who did not come from Jerusalem(v9)?


PS: Am really curious as to whether this incidence happened before or after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 & Cornelius conversion. I lean towards AFTER seeing Peter readily sat with Gentiles and the circumcision debate appears to have been settled from Paul's words in the rebuke. This would heavily magnify Peter's hypocrisy and warrant not just a sharp rebuke but a public one and a record of the same to another church as a stern warning. Does it bother you that Paul had no qualms publicizing this event long after it occurred to the Galatia commoners?

How you can see the obvious truths and still clutch on to strawman's is what is most befuddling of all. It might come to you as a shock but I have done a very good research on what occured in ANTIOCH and not Galatia as you posited. I however agree with you that Paul's rebuke of Peter happened after the Jerusalem council but I disagree with you on the who and who that were there while it transpired and it is not hard to know why.

Shortly after the Jerusalem meeting Paul and Barnabas were on their way to Antioch to continue with the Gentile commission. James (the leader of the Jerusalem church) sent his 'Chief Men' or 'Excos' to join them and ensure that Paul adhered to the conclusions of the meeting i.e give to the poor, don't let them eat meat strangled or dedicated to Idols etc., the very things that Paul was willing to do. Peter later joined in before Silas and co (the Chief men) arrived and behaved himself only to act like a hypocrite when they came. Some of the men that came with Silas also behaved hypocritically and their antics swayed Barnabas to join in. This attitude infuriated Paul so he corrected Peter infront of them all. Them all being- the chief men like Silas and co, (co means other Jews that travelled with him) and Barnabas, Paul's companion. Paul did it to their hearing because they were all LEADERS whose conduct was important because the new members will always seek to emulate them. Paul was correcting Peter in love. He didn't do so in front of any crowd or congregation neither did he take it to a group of the misinformed. Where do you think he learned it from? JESUS.

When John the Baptist started expressing doubts about Jesus' messiahship he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was truly the sent one. Jesus healed a couple of people in their presence and told them to relay the information to John that: the blind saw, lame walked etc. Then at the end he whispered a correction to John. He said "blessed is he who he is not offended by me". Immediately after doing that Jesus faced the crowd and began to praise John publicly. He said not a single man born of a woman (prior to Jesus) had a greater calling than John. You see, Jesus corrected John in secret but he praised him openly. That's what love does.

Now do the needful and measure the reactions of you and some of your ilk with Jesus' or the word and let's see how close you measure up.

christemmbassey:
you that know so much about Melchi, where did he collect his war spoil(tithe), in heaven? I You ppl don't ave conscience, you can li e , steal and still keep straight face, on ur intrest to argue tithing, did i send u any application?

Melchizedek is what Bible students call a Theophany. There is alot to be known about him but many are too hard of hearing so they would not understand. Please don't call me a thief again. I only had to state my disinterest in discussing tithes because it is unhealthy and never ending. As for me, I will tithe till Jesus comes.

Bless you.

christemmbassey:
its a pitty you don't know what you are saying, when he offered himself ön d cross, died to take our sins away, what function was he performing. Bros, there's no logic to hide to substantiate this ur crime called tithe, if u do not know, Jesus death on d cross was d BIGEST DUTY HE WILL EVER PERFORM AS A HIGH PRIEST. teacher, teach yaself!

Calm down bro, I know what I am talking about. There is an astronomical difference between him being the SACRIFICE and him being the HIGH PRIEST. Jesus death on the cross was his duty as the SACRIFICE while his role in using his blood in the Holy of Holies in heaven was his duty as the HIGH PRIEST. When we give tithes we proclaim he is great as a high priest and that he is alive, same way the communion proves that he truly died as the sacrifice. Communion and Tithes are related and if you are spiritual you would see it. Melchizedek received tithes and then brought the communion to Abraham. Communion says Christ died and Tithes say Christ is alive.

NOTE: I won't say anymore on this issue again.

christemmbassey:
Abraham did not pay tithe by faith, he was not expecting anything, rather (if i must say) it was Melchi who gave him bread and wine by faith, may be, when he (MELCHI) heard dat Abram was returning in victory, he said, let me run along and welcome him, pahaps he will give me tithe, i strongly disagree with Hagin position ö tithe, as far as I'm concern it is double speak and dishonesty of highest order. The question remains, why is it dat when Jesus was on earth he did NOT COLLECT TITHE, but sudenly developed hunger for tithe now dat he's in heaven? MELCHI collected his own tithe personally here on eath where he was able to use it, why is Jesus collecting his own tro questionable proxies? Isaac did not pay tithe, the children of Israel for 400yrs in Egvpt did not pay tithe, 40yr in d wilderness did not pay tithe, now even d modern jews do not pay/tithe, why should ' an Efik man from Calabar, Nigeria, a gentile pay tithe? TITHE IS THE BIGEST FRAUD IN HUMAN HISTORY! The fact that its been practiced by many ppl for centuries doe8 not make it right.

1. Jesus did not FUNCTION as a priest on earth. Jesus is now a high priest forever. Jesus paid tithes while on earth.
2. Melchizedek did not collect tithes "where he was able to use it". You don't know enough about Melchizedek to make such a statement.
3. Jacob learned to pay tithes from someone, care to tell us who it was? I wager he learnt it from his father, Isaac.

NB: I am not interested in this endless tithe arguments. I just wanted to raise red flags to some of your unsubstantiated claims.

vooks:
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
2:12 For before that certain came from James , he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all , If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Who is 'THEM'?

1. Certain came from James.
2. When they came he [Peter] withdrew and separated himself from the gentiles fearing THEM [certain that came from James]
3. Other Jews like Barnabas too were carried away by the dissimulation.
4. Paul rebuked Peter before THEM [certain that came from James] all [including the other Jews around Paul like Barnabas]

Who were these certain men? Where they 'floor members' or 'Excos'? Why did James (leader of the Jerusalem church) send them?

Those who have eyes to see will see while the incorrigibly positioned hooligans will keep trolling by making moot points here and there.

Gombs,

You are being derailed. I think you should just go on with the review and entertain the derailments subsequently.

As per the Coat and Garments debacle, I think the problem is caused by the wanton urge to speed-read scriptures with the notion of looking for possible ammunition to contradict the post.

The bible and bible history clearly states that Jesus wore a gown as well as a seamless coat over it even when he was arrested. When he was to be flogged and scourged the soldiers took both of him. After they were done they put the garment that was scarlet and the crown of thorns over his head and then took him to Golgotha. Obviously, when he was placed on the cross before it was raised they took of the garment provided by Herod and divided into four portions (possibly for memorabilia) but when it came to the aspect of coat they decided to cast lots for it (because it was a costly possession), hence they didn't want it torn. That they fulfilled scriptures while at it was purely coincidental to them for they didn't even know the scriptures (they were Gentiles). Besides, they didn't say "let us fulfil scriptures by casting lots for his coat"- it was the disciples recounting the story, that told people how that even the aspect of casting lots for Jesus coat proves he was the sent one.

So Kenneth Hagin was still spot on- Jesus was not a homeless bum, Pauper or what have you that had "no where to lay his head". Jesus wasn't also flamboyant or extravagant (both 2 represent extremes). Jesus was however not POOR and those who have written articles to that effect can be humble enough to make their adjustments now.

nannymcphee:
@mbaemeka
for starters, I do believe that the words shared here by all are seeds that have been sown into your heart
it's only a matter of time before they will cause you to think & challenge what you have always believed, when that happens & if you'll be true to yourself, you will see the light
Your "sunesis" is amazing & it's clear you are viewing things in one shade of light
The essence of this discuss is to help you view things in another shade.
just keep an open mind, I fought against the WOF thread kind off, while I still don't agree with some things there but I have come to discover alot of errors I have been practicing.
I love you & I wish you well

If the new light you are referring to is how words don't matter, Christ's salvation has nothing to do with prosperity or how we can call ourselves any names we choose then you can guess again. Unlike some others on this thread, I don't look at what is happening in the world to confirm words I have clearly seen in the bible- no way! Instead I force my experiences to conform to the word of God. That's what true spirituality should be all about. So I don't say "how come white people call themselves any names but it does not seem to affect them"? It is akin to a Buddhist who says "how did christ give them any ability to live sinless when I have lived a sinless life all my life without knowing christ?". You will always find people who claim they could do anything without God including getting healed, prosperous, being wise, living above sin etc. The question you should ask yourself is what does God's word say about the issue regardless of what I can see? Is believing not seeing again or has it been inverted by the so-called non-WOF?

There was a wonderful MOG that got involved in a car accident to the point that they could barely find parts of his body. I am certain if he was to some degree whole, the church would have had enough faith to raise him back to life but that was not to be. During IPPC of. . .(can't remember the year exactly) but the members of that man's church came forward to ask Pastor Chris why the man left that way seeing how unusual such news is to us. Pastor Chris opened the bible and showed some vital portions all saying the same things and then he asked them if they could see his name in the bible to which they declined. Then he went further to explain how that when we get to heaven we would all ask the Master what happened to that brother.

The point I am trying to make is that he didn't switch his belief because of one experience. He showed how much so he believes in everything in the bible to the point that he would rather look like a fool for it than to appear wise to carnal men who cherry pick scriptures based on what they see. I respected him so much that day. I have prayed for a cousin that had full-blown AIDS and he still died yet I have prayed for another person that was sick (not with AIDS) and he got healed instantly! I shut my mind to the AIDS scenario and I only try to remember the success. That's how close-minded I am about such things.

Mike Murdoch used to say "I refuse to be mentored by failures" and I share similar sentiments with him. In the same vein I declare, "I refuse to be in the gang of hypocrites and scoffers" "I believe what the word of God says regardless of my experiences". I know the importance of testing all things and holding fast to what is true but when someone whose life isn't working right neither does anything he puts his hand to do prosper, try to advice me, I always shut my mind because he will make me like himself if I let those seeds that made him a failure get into me.

Remember that these men (including me) didn't start believing these words because things were going smooth. When I had zero naira I still said I am rich and now that I have seen waay more than zero naira I will still say so because of what God says I am regardless of what the "facts" say.

I do love and wish you well as well.

Cheers

#Signing out

nannymcphee:
when people read the book of Revelation they do it in awe & fear but not you! You have seen prosperity & material wealth out of it
The context lukewarm is used is talking about the Christian service & not money or acquisition
a typical example is the one who just got saved, he goes about preaching & ministering salvation to people but down the line, he slacked, he hasn't backslided neither is he still doing those acts of Christian service, this is what it means to be lukewarm
My God, how & where did you see money out of this!!
This refers to folks who have money, technology etc who put all their trust in their money. In other words, they don't need God
a good example will be the developed nations who believed so much in their technological advancement & have no room for God, spiritual they are dead(hence their wretchedness, but can't see it because of the seemingly wealth or advanced state of living)
This is the correct interpretation to the above verse & not the financial hogwash you put there
It has nothing to do with attributing what God gave you to another source
For the bolded, you are wrong, Cornelius was not saved but his Giving, Came up as a memorial before God! Do you know how many people worship & give thanks to God because of Bill gates! Do you know what he has done for the poor?
you need to wash your eyes with the eye salve the bible talked about
When the bible talks about true riches, laying up treasure it's not talking about material wealth!!
Here again Paul wasn't talking about making them materially wealthy but about spiritual riches !!!
No one says God does not provide materially, neither have I said you can't pray for it, after all Jesus said "give us our daily bread"
what I'm saying is, it isn't the right of the Christian to be wealthy, just because he had accepted chtist but it's God that determines who gets what & how much you get
So you are to be content with what you have while praying to him to increase you. Whether the increase comes or not, BE CONTENT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE

It really does not matter what sort of awe or fear anyone feels when they read whatever portion of scripture as long as they are reading it with the right interpretations. Someone can as well read the aspect of "women should not pray or prophesy with their head uncovered" and then develop the same fear and awe but only to use a paper as substitute in a situation where a scarf or what have you is unavailable. All such "awe and fear" will only be sensual, lacking spiritual import or verisimilitude. It means nothing to God. Hope you catch my drift.

The context talking about Christian service is your own convoluted cogitation at work. That it incorporates christian service does not limit the interpretation to just that and if you read the verses with the Berean eye that we all claim to have then you would have seen it in the light of the areas I emboldened. For example, when describing the Lukewarm nature of the works the lord said " You say you have riches, increased goods and you need nothing". Now tell me, how the afore could not be referring to something physical like wealth or what not and what was the Lord's advice to them? He said "buy from me gold tried by fire SO THAT YOU MAYBE RICH". That's why we can tell that he didn't see them as rich even though they lacked nothing in the physical sense.

Concerning what you wrote under the highlight of the Verse 17 you are only spinning yourself. You gave the same interpretation I did yet called my hogwash. I clearly said that he was addressing the same group he called Lukewarm in preceding verses as he used BECAUSE in vv.17 to explain why they were Lukewarm. To add to that he was addressing a CHURCH in Laodecia and not some "Nations" as you claim. He was calling a church that mixes worldly principles with Godly principles as Lukewarm. He was referring to the same band of folks that say they are Christians but they don't need God to prosper seeing that worldly men prosper as well. So my dear your own interpretation is the dangerous hogwash inchoated by a child that eats food from all the neighbours houses and begins to complain about the one given to her by her parents.

Oh please give me a break about Bill Gates for I knew it was going to come to that. I didn't say God doesn't regard his givings or what he has done for the poor. That is commendable. I said God doesn't regard him as rich because he doesn't attribute his success to God. Speaking of Cornelius, hope you realise he was a proselyte Jew. So his almsgiving and prayers were in line with the OT that had just changed. God was trying to let him know that so he sent an angel to him. Maybe we should ask Bill Gates if any angel has appeared to him concerning his giving. Being rich to God includes deriving material prosperity from God and using it for God's purposes. That's the only way we store treasures in heaven. So you should take the same eye salve to wash your own eyes and stop projecting your own inconsistencies on others.

If there ever was an archetype of illogical reasoning, it would be your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6:10 that I mentioned and it comes to me as no surprise why you have delved into such folly. How can Paul who is "spiritually poor" now decide to make others "spiritually rich"? Does it make sense to you? Why is he dishing out a double standard? If being spiritually poor is good for him then my dear, it would be good for EVERY other christian so I see no reason why he would make others something different. Being Spiritually poor is what God expects of us. Jesus already said the poor in spirit are blessed so it would be wicked of Paul to remain blessed and then make others cursed.

A billion times No. Paul was referring to something physical there. That's why he said even if I am poor many are becoming rich through what I preach. Paul was defending his ministry! Read that whole chapter and see it.

When you say it is not the right of every christian to be wealthy that is what is wrong. If every christian has a right to be called righteous then he also has the same right to be rich. Salvation gave us access to the Abrahamic blessings which includes amongst other things wealth. If any christian decides to remain poor after such knowledge then there is nothing wrong with that but they must know about it for it belongs to them.

Like I have said before God is not going to make anyone rich. He has already made us rich. What we are to do is to discover it. If a man who is a cobbler, comes into Christ today and becomes aware of this truth. He will begin to prosper. Of course contentment is great gain but how do we define it? A man who cannot pay his kids school fee is he to be contented? What about the one that could not pay his rent? If such men believed this aspect of their salvation that we are showing to them all such challenges will be a thing of the past. That's what God's word says and I believe him so that pretty much settles it.

Nannymcphee,

I would appreciate it if you asked for clarification so as not to misconstrue anything I have to say like some people do. I am affording you such courtesy because you do not seem to be on any side but merely expressing yourself based on what you think is right.

Yes, I said someone can begin as a Taxi Driver but as he discovers more of his rights in christ he would prosper as is expected. When you did not understand me I gave you an example of a man I know in the ministry who has such a success story. I have more than 30 odd stories to that effect. If you are looking for scriptural backing for such I have a deluge but I also mentioned one to you in my edited post to your rebuttal of my Revelations 2&3 explanations. The passage of scripture is in Psalms 1:1-3 and the scripture says WHATSOEVER the Godly man does will PROSPER.

The question I should ask you is what does WHATSOEVER mean and how do you relate it to prosperity? Jacob started with a few Cattle here and there till he had more than he could count same way the man who used to drive one taxi now owns more than 2000 cars to his name. That is financial prosperity and it is scriptural.

You are better of knowing exactly what another man believes and then critiquing it than to have a false understanding and then use it to cast aspersions. The people who act that way are the same one's that claimed Jesus was a cannibal because he told them to eat his flesh. They were not in his fold. Be wise.

nannymcphee:
I know the likes of Gombs, mbaemeka etc will not turn around now but I know seeds are being sowed in their hearts(when will they bear fruits, that I can't tell & I hope it doesn't happen too late)

I only engage them because in so doing peradventure they might go study from The bible what God has to say about these things

Most of what they say here isn't what they studied from the bible but what they have been taught by their pastors & a lot don't bother checking the scriptures even if & when they check its still interpreted from that same view, so at the end of the day, no difference

Why my case is slightly different is because I listened to other ministers & this availed me the opportunity to view things in different perspective

This is an unfair statement to make about me but I do not hold it against you. My knowledge of scripture would not be in doubt to those that have engaged me thus far. I always do my own personal study on some things and where I lack understanding I ask the Holy spirit to help and I discuss it with many other christians to see different perspectives as well. Most of the people I discuss with have been in ministry since the 80s when it all started, so you can be sure I know as much as you concerning where and how it started.

Concerning other pastors I have listened to a handful and God's spirit helps me detect wheat from chaff. I also try to stay in touch with those who believe what I do. It should not come as an aberration. Paul kept teaching about the singularity of mind and purpose. It is what causes great changes to happen quickly. God said concerning the Tower of Babel that if he didn't give each man a different language, there would be nothing men would try to achieve in unity that they would not.

It seems you would soon be a wife and therefore a mother. How would you like it if your kids went to different neighbour's houses to eat food only to come home each time to tell you "so and so does not use thyme" and "so and so uses meat to prepare beans we don't like the way you prepare your own?". Well, that is how it is in the church. After all, Hemogenes and Alexander who were former members of Paul's church went around telling people that there was no resurrection. A teaching that was in total deviance from what Paul taught and he reserved no fine words for them. I have heard Pastor Chris say he once gave the pulpit to a particular lady (from another ministry) to preach one day and she (in between her sermon) said "I am still one of those who believes that women should not be wearing trousers in the church". That sort of mixture will definitely confuse God's children further because that is not what he teaches from his own understanding of the bible. Paul called it a bewitchment to the Galatians and he blamed it on this mixture of teachings. One man says we are saved by only grace through faith while another man says we have to mix it with the law or else it is not true salvation. That's why today CE is very cautious about who is invited to teach and such a person must really be loaded (spiritually and scripturally) because we definitely do not come behind in that regard.

If God is leading you somewhere else that is fine and commendable. Just make sure he is the one doing so and not your own predilections or grievances. Pastors Omar Pela and Sam Amaga were very close to Reverend Chris Oyakhilome and members of the church but God led them to start their own ministries. I have attended House of Grace (Omar Pela's) for a particular programme and he had very nice things to say about him that if you are not of the spirit, you would think he was Hero-worshiping him.The man knows a gift when he sees one and he honors it as instructed by the holy scriptures.

nannymcphee:
Really!!! You think the true riches the bible was talking about is material acquisition

You are misunderstanding my posts (hopefully unintentionally). True riches includes material acquisition but it is not limited to it. What stands anything out- whether health, wealth, wisdom etc. to be true is if derived from God. That's all I have said.

The verses up there has nothing to do with material prosperity

Really? Maybe we should examine that verse well so you can understand my position a little better. Revelations 3

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy unclothedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Jesus is saying to the church at Laodicia that their works are Lukewarm because they are inbetween serving him and attributing all their achievements to themselves i.e like saying I believe God but I can prosper without him. Jesus says it is lukewarm because a christian should be fully in God and depend on him FOR ALL thereby making them Cold, or you can be a sinner and depend fully on the system of the world to succeed and be therefore Hot. But these group of people were mixing it kinda like *coughs* some Christians on here.

The church was RICH, INCREASED IN GOODS and HAVING NEED OF NOTHING or so they thought, but in the Lord's eye because they did not acquire it by him they were wretched, miserable, POOR, blind etc. Then he counseled them to buy from him gold tried by fire. What is gold tried by fire in the scriptures? FAITH

1 Peter 1:7King James Version (KJV)
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

That's why he said they should have faith in him (buy gold tried by fire from him) so that they would truly be rich, meaning Jesus doesn't regard Bill Gates as rich nor will he regard any christian that chooses to prosper away from God's word as one. So those who try to compare Christian prosperity to worldy prosperity and even claim they are the same, should guess again.

you folks keep saying the the poor Christian is in that state because of choice or lack of knowledge yet you can't show where it was stated in the NT

Poverty out of choice is clearly taught in the bible. Paul was "poor" by choice, yet the gospel he preached made many rich.

2 Corinthians 6:10King James Version (KJV)
10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

Poverty by lack of knowledge is very NT too

Hosea 4:6King James Version (KJV)
6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:

I know you would say this is the OT but I would ask only one question: Who are God's people today: Israel by the flesh or Israel by the spirit? Also take note that God himself said "MY people". So it is possible for God's children to still be destroyed and suffer because of a lack of knowledge and that knowledge can be in the area of their finances, health, marital life etc.

Paul acknowledged the poor & nowhere did he prescribe that they give so that they will have

Please read this slowly. It is from Philippians 2.

17 Not that I seek or am eager for [your] gift, but I do seek and am eager for the fruit which increases to your credit [the harvest of blessing that is accumulating to your account].

Paul is saying he is not so much interested in the money that they gave to him. He is eager for the HARVEST OF BLESSINGS that is accumulating to their accounts. This harvest of blessings includes material prosperity and Paul has told us why he is certain to see it in their lives. It is because they sowed it into his life, they gave it to him. Look at this:

Psalm 126:6Amplified Bible (AMP)
6 He who goes forth bearing seed and weeping [at needing his precious supply of grain for sowing] shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.

The bible clearly shows that anyone who sows any form of seeds while weeping (because it is a sacrifice) will DOUBTLESS come back with his HARVEST. DOUBTLESS means WITHOUT A DOUBT. Just in case someone didn't understand and I didn't say it- the Bible clearly says so.

No one lacked because those that had gave, who were these that lacked prior to the giving? Weren't they Christians? Do you find the apostles teaching these folks that lack was bad

Sister, those that lacked prior to the giving were poor people who newly became christians. Same way someone who Just gave his heart to christ can come in and start small (probably still making mistakes). As long as he keeps renewing his mind by the word he would grow. As per whether lack is bad you tell me. Lack out of penury is bad. If you are to lack let it be out of your own volition or a sacrifice you made to help someone or to meet someone's need. A brother was stealing in the church in Ephesus. Why did he steal if not that he was conscious of a lack? Remember this brother was already a christian and a member of Paul's church!

What about the widows that were neglected that led to the office of deacons? Why did they need the ministration if they had? Do you find the apostles teaching them on how it's their right to have becos Christ died for them

The early church wasn't perfect ma. At this point they didn't even know Gentiles would be called into the fold let alone what the full inheritance was. When Paul came on the scene he even recommended that only Old widows should be fed. He instructed the younger ones to get remarried and get a means of livelihood to cater to their own personal needs and stop bothering the church. You tell me, a christian that has any means of livelihood and meets all the provisions of say Psalms 1:1-3, will such a one not prosper? Did Isaac not begin average and then prosper?

See how lengthy I made my post just so you would see that the gospel is entire and not just about any isolated portions. I hope you noticed that no man alive wrote these things but by men of God who were led by the Holy spirit to do so. I only rightly divided it.

^^^^

You are wrong. God is not trying to make anyone rich. We inherited riches when we came into Christ. Btw riches doesn't only mean material prosperity. The inheritance is a total package including health, enlightenment, wisdom, well-being etc.

vooks:
I have answered your question on Hwzekiah in a reply to @Kenny4lyfe
We don't need clarity in your Consent Theory of Christian Death, Jesus will ONLY call you home with your consent. Without your consent you are immortal....immortal negro

Again, Enock like Simeon who you have conveniently abandoned won't advance your Rhapsodies crap. He was translated. Elijah too and Mary if you are into Catholicism mysticism. God CAN translate all Christ Embassy hooligans to hell sparing them first death just he did Enock,Elijah. How does this advance your theory?

You brought up Christ return to demonstrate victory over death since some Christians will still be alive. That's marine invertebrate IQ. why so, ONLY the living Christians at that time can boast of victory over death if victory means escaping death. The rest of the dead were sore losers. Their resurrection and glorification notwithstanding they are sore losers

VICTORY over death is manifested in RESURRECTION, a futuristic event. Read 1 Corinthians 15 backwards twice. That's the essence of a believer's hope. In the meantime, believers and non believers suffer the same fate; death.

Christ death was never meant to tinker with our lifespan and it is insulting to label longer lifespan victory over death because you still die anyway and Christ Embassy hooligans have no monopoly of long life. Do they live long anyway?

You do not know what victory over death is and you wouldn't ask. You would create an idea in your head and say this what so so and so believe and they are wrong yet you would not care to understand what they know or are conscious of that you are not. Only oafs behave that way.

I am tempted to teach you what the bible refers to as victory over death but you would not understand it. Let me give you a little hint hoping you would catch it one day. Hebrews says Christ tasted death ONCE and for all for EVERY MAN. If it is physical death why do people still die and if it is spiritual death why would some people still go to hell? Can flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of God? If not, then how would a man enter into Heaven (a region in the kingdom of God) ? If the man enters with his spirit what happens to the body of the man?

James 2:26 says death is when the spirit leaves the body and Paul calls christian death sleep.

If you had high spiritual IQ you would be ok but the sad thing is that you don't. And it is spiritual IQ one needs to discern spiritual things. (I hope this doesn't pass you by)

nannymcphee:
herein lies the problem with this prosperity message!! What is wrong with being a TAXI DRIVER?

If all taxi driver's in the world is won over to Christ, who then will drive taxi's? Without them how can people move around

I guess you're in Nigeria that's why you said this! Do you know how much those folks make in a day? But in your thinking, they don't drive big cars & own houses etc they are not wealthy!!!

God can prosper a taxi driver in the taxi business

Paul in the bible was a tent maker!! Your Jesus was a Carpenter


this is the problem with the prosperity message teaching that all Christians must/should/ought to be rich

The key word is contentment, there are people who will never have their own house all their lifetime but will be happy & prosperous paying rent (be it face me I face you, be it bungalow or duplex)

so in ur world, a true Christian cannot remain a maid, cleaner, gateman, cook etc because Jesus will elevate them.

let's do a little Mathis

a taxi driver that earns N3000/day(they earn more than this) this amounts to N90,000/month

There are graduates that teach in schools, even engineers that earn btw 10,000-45,000

Who is more prosperous ? I guess you'll say they both need Jesus

the above category of folks can only pray to God to uplift their status/bless the work of their hands & God in his sovereignty will determine how & if he answers them

To add to what Gombs said I am not disparaging any profession neither am I saying all Christians must/should be rich. I said all Christians ARE rich and each can discover his inheritance in any occupation he finds himself be it a painter or a driver. My Pastor says "be a mechanic with a difference" "be a hawker with a difference!".

Speaking of drivers, one of the "richest" men in my church was a taxi driver that now owns a car rental company in Nigeria. The man started out as a taxi but he saw from the word that he was rich in Christ so he believed it and put the word to work by his meditation amongst other things. In a while he became so prosperous that his company is involved in car hire services of all forms. He is definitely a billionaire in Naira now and he attributes his success to his application of the word of God and nothing else. There are many others like him some of which are painters that have given out more than 10 cars to strangers even university lecturers that taught them. There is honor in every occupation and as long you are a child of God who believes the word, just like Joseph you too would prosper. Prosperity is our inheritance.

NB: there is nothing like a prosperity gospel (for the umpteenth time). The gospel is a total package.

Gombs:
Heheh, nice move ma'am. He never said there was something wrong in taxi driving, neither did he say they are poor folks, but out of some sheer desperation to cling to something in a thread as this, you made the above detour.

We're taught in church that any service to humanity is honorable, be it shoe shining (oya nail me for presumably calling them poor), or any menial job, for we work to earn a giving, not a living. Our prosperity is not by our jobs or family, but of the Lord. Isaac was a well digger, he prospered not from the business, Jesus was a carpenter, he prospered not from it...in fact all other disciples left their jobs and followed Jesus, yet they never lacked. Luke was a physician, Matthew an accountant, some fisher men etc
Paul a tent maker, DID NOT prosper from the business...he did it to earn a giving, go study. So save your math, and quit twisting what mba wrote. Thank you.

See you forming peity, why didn't you take up taxi driving as a career then since they make 90k a month?

I don't know what this thread would have been without you bro. Thanks.

vooks:
This is mbaemeko the arch-hooligan from CE who wished me death by road accident and suicide
Revelation 3:17-18 (KJV)
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy unclothedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see

Contrast that with Smyrna.

Revelation 2:8-9 (KJV)
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; 9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan

Poverty was not a stranger in the primitive church. Of course they was too dumb to understand their 'position' in Christ. It took WOF wolves to spot what had been missed

May God grant you eyes of understanding to see that these verses above give credence to my standing even as they shame you sense-ruled scoffers in the house of God.

In Revelations 3, Jesus says to the church you are wretched and poor so now buy Gold from me (gold that has been tried by fire) so that you would be rich. How can poor people buy Gold except the gold he is referring to is not a physical gold? The understanding is simple for that church was physically and financially wealthy but they had put Jesus out of the door by telling him "any one can prosper, you didn't make us prosper, we don't need you to prosper after all antichrists prosper too" So Jesus in return tells them they are miserable, wretched and poor because their "prosperity" is not from or unto him. So he instructs them to come to him to get the 'true' riches as his has been passed through fire I.e will stand the test of time.

Concerning Revelations 2, he tells the church I know you are poor but in fact you are RICH or did you miss that part? So why is telling poor people that they are rich? The simple answer is that being poor or rich has nothing to do with having money but in being aware about your inheritance in Christ and that inheritance includes material prosperity. It takes faith to lay hold of that inheritance and faith involves saying the same things with God in agreement with him. So the poor church in Smyrna were actually RICH.