₦airaland Forum

Error rides on the back of Truth (Unknown). The first statement is erroneous; a cunning affirmation of that which Romans 6:1 denounces!

But Corporate bodies eg Banks pay Income tax to FIRS (Federal govt) alone not SIRS!What then? Except if the issue here is remittance of PAYE deducted, there is more to this story.

lordnicklaus:
Dear Scholar,


Based on carbon dating, the Greek and Aramaic manuscripts not containing the Trinity doctrine are actually the oldest available manuscripts for this bible passage.


The ones containing it are actually later manuscripts or copies.............

But how about the quoting of the same passage by 2nd Century folks, a time when many claim that part was not there yet?

,i mean powerful cult members that do rituals,sacrifice,etc all in the name of being rich and wealthy and commanding the society and some of the [size=14pt]real born again christians[/size] in the church with their occult power will most often be a dedicated church member who many can swear that they are born again and you can hardly believe that he or she is an occult member.In most cases,they are the ones they says what happens in the church and the society.

Op, the highlighted is a contradiction that will only be true the day you have a bright sun shining in mid-night (and the darkness remains)!

Nominal church members, wolves among the sheep may do such, but not the real ones; except they have backslidden!

Once again op, how/when did Paul propound the idea of Jesus being a Divine Son? Was Paul the author of the Gospel of John? Was Paul the mentor of Philip who told the Ethiopian Eunuch and the latter agreed saying, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'' ACts 8:37(note that Paul was still a pharisee when this happened)!
Or did Paul lead the prayer session in Acts 4 where they concluded the prayer by: '' and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of [b]thy holy child Jesus''[/b]Acts 4:30 (Paul was unknown at this time)!



Why do you and your ilks have a penchant for stating erroneous assumptions as facts?

ã

lordnicklaus:
You quoted from the KJV which was based on corrupt biblical manuscripts. The part you just quoted was a later construct/addition which is not found in the oldest manuscript of John's letter. I will now quote from a reliable translation.



"There are three witnesses: the spirit, the water and the blood and these three are in agreement" - 1 JOHN 5:7- NIV, GOODNEWS


There is no reference to a Trinity. So before you label someone an ordinary church-goer, gain more knowledge. And incase you check the above mentioned translations and still see something like the one you quoted, try reading the footnotes and you will see where it is written that the Trinity supporting text was a later addition and that the best and oldest manuscripts do not have such verse......

Kindly visit this thread and tell me what you think:

https://www.nairaland.com/2937501/1-john-5-7-real

Op, baptism in the Name of Jesus as mentioned in Acts, with respect to the context, is baptism by The Authority of Christ:

New International Version
They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: "By what power or what name did you do this?"
ACts 4:7

7 And they set the men in their midst and repeatedly demanded, By what sort of power or by what kind of authority did [such people as] you do this [healing]?
Acts 4:7 Amplified



The Name signifies authority in that context!

Now let's see the same Matthew 28:19 in the Amplified

19 Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


Meaning the context of both verses are different! The one speaks of Authority while the other speaks of a Spiritual Reality.

Hence, there was no addition/editing made there.

So, can you explain how, "we are our own god"?

Now, op, from history, why were the disciples of Jesus persecuted and Martyred?

What made them go into hiding?

Whence came the power that changed them from hiding men to men who were willing to be killed for their message?

What was the message that made them the prey sought for by the Jews and Pharisees?

P.S.: Answer these questions specifically and directly. A trite, catch-all response would defeat the purpose of this thread.

Empiree:
I was going to reply her the same but decided to ignore. What she brought here is irrelevant. [size=14t]Even [size=14pt]if someone kills all his life[/size] while having tawheed[/size] and then repents, paradise is still possible for him. [size=14pt]Even if he doesn't repent till he dies,[/size] he receives punishment for as long as Allah wishes. But at the end, our believe is, [size=14pt]so long as he has faith[/size] (tawheed), [size=14pt]he will NEVER remain in Hell forever[/size]. That's Allah's promise.

A good well behaved christian however, no matter excellent his or her behavior right here on the planet will still end up in eternal damnation. But Allah is The Most Merciful, He gives them discount for good behavior. This "discount" could mean comfort at the time of their death.

As per the highlighted:
Can we assume then that Islam teaches that man can therefore pay for his sins in life or after death?

What is the basis of the faith mentioned? (you cant say this {faith} refers to Islam as a religion except you mean ...)

Could we therefore conclude that Islam's rather temporary hell is the same as Catholicism's purgatory?


As per the coloured text, prove that a good christian will have eternal damnation.

Concerning the amplified text, can this not embolden terrorists? Because, even of you claim their murders etc are un-islamic, as long as they have the islamic version of faith, they will only be in hell for a season afterwards they will be free? Clarify.

Empiree:
God's Nature and His Attributes are not complicated at all. It's the later generation influenced by shaytan that created confusion. David {p} believed in One God so was Jesus the son of Mary{p}

Whether they predate Islam and Muhammad is irrelevant. Open your eyes, brov

alright.

WORDWORLD:
HAVE YOU READ THE STORY OF JONAH IN THE BIBLE? WHEN THE SHIP THAT HABOURED HIM WAS FACING CHALLENGES AND EVERYONES LIFE WAS AT STAKE. WHO DID THEY ALL FINALLY TURN TO.

Analogy not applicable here!
However, they turned everyone to his god (Jonah 1;5a) but when Jonah told them what he did and Who Yahweh, his God was, they did what Jonah told them and when they saw the result, they feared the Lord - Yahweh.

Likewise, in time to come, EVERY knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that He is Lord!

Empiree:
Scholar8200, i certainly see no reason for you to remain in Christianity at this point. You can see the obvious. You guys have no merit here. As educated as you are, you should be able to figure out this whole thing already.

There is NO WAY Christians can return to monotheism unless and until they return to Islam.

Indeed, you wouldnt see the reason neither understand except God opens your eyes.

Well we have discussed these things at length and I am not interested in saying the same things again.

The Israelite believed the Lord our God is One Lord! Yet, neither David nor Isaiah nor others were stoned when they clearly revealed His Nature!

But then if you choose to take the part of the pharisees who accused Jesus of blasphemy or of the Sabellianists who would make God's nature agreeable to their finite intellect, the choice is yours. Interestingly, both sects predates Islam and Mohammed.

God is Who He reveals Himself to be not what we expect or reason Him out to be in our finiteness and/or depravity.

Empiree:
Scholar8200, i certainly see no reason for you to remain in Christianity at this point. You can see the obvious. You guys have no merit here. As educated as you are, you should be able to figure out this whole thing already.

There is NO WAY Christians can return to monotheism unless and until they return to Islam.

Indeed, no one would see except God opens their eyes.

Empiree:
And you acted like you dont know about Allaha

And what's the DEFINITION of Allaha?

when and where? Aramaic is a language that shares similarity with arabic. And if God means Allaha in aramaic, it means where idols were called gods, the same allaha word would be used. Hence the God we know, the One Jesus referred to is the Father Whose Name is Yahweh.

Which does Islam refer to?

WORDWORLD:
UNTIL WHEN IT REALLY BECOMES STORMY AND THERE IS NO ESCAPE THEN THEY ONE BEING CALLED WILL BE ONE AND ALL THE SAME.

An intersting theme is common in all PAGAN RELIGION and that is the idea of 'HENOTHEISM', where there is a group of people that worship a nuumber of 'divine beings' like 3 in one God. We find that there is always a Supreme Deity that is considered to be above all the others. This trend is prominent in Hinduism, in Greek and Roman mythologies, even with TRINITY. How ever, what is really IMPORTANT to note in such religions that acsribe partnership with the ONE AND ONLY CREATOR is that, in actual practice. The smaller god, like the son e.t.c always gets the lion share in attention and devotion of their worshipers, while the SUPREME GOD disappers in the background, as He is carelessly ignored and casually brushed aside.

EXCEPT WHEN THE STORM BECOME WILD. WE ALL TURN TO HIM AND ONLY HIM.

the very thought and expectation of the people who, having synthesized a storm(through fire power), tell their captives ,''renounce Jesus or die'', . But glory to God, they have been and will continually be shamed!

WORDWORLD:
Scholar8200 could explain to us if the Hausa Christain who shouts out UBANGIJI ALLAH is shouting TRASH calling on some kind of DEMON.

There are Bibles written in Arabic, and the name witten is ALLAH not God not Jehovah.

THEY KEEP ON COMPLICATING SIMPLE MATTERS, MYSTIFYING WHAT IS SO PLANE..

the one you call on as a muslim is not the One he calls on as a Christian.

WORDWORLD:
@ Scholar8200

You WISH i started with the last paragraph DID NOT ANSWER the question being asked in that last paragraph. PLEASE!!!

YOU'VE BEEN GOING ROUND AND ROUND LIKE MARY GO ROUND THOUGH THAT IS WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU ANYWAY.
ITS CHRISTIANITY.

The question again is, IS THE WHOLE of the Bible God's Word. Because it anwsers JUST every of DILEMMA raised by the OP.

A muslim will tell you straight up. THE WHOLE OF THE QURAN IS ALLAH'S WORDS AND THERE IS NO ARGUEMENT ABOUT THAT AMONG ALL THE UUNFORTUNATE SECTS TODAY.

As for the question IS THE WHOLE OF THE BIBLE GOD'S WORDS being asked in the last paragraph shouldnt determine what the correct answer should be.

SHOULD IT?

YOU HAVE ALL THE LIBERTY OF MAKING IT THE FIRST TO BE ANSWERED BY YOU IF IT REALLY MATTERED. YET YOU LEFT A RESPONSE VAGUE, AN INCOMPLETE THOUGHT .........................UNANSWERED EXCEPT BLOWING ME A "I WISH".

Neither should it be about OPINION but what is TRUE.

ok

Empiree:
Okay, let me keep it simple. I am not gonna waste time dealing with everything you wrote except highlighted part. You owe it to yourself to proof annunaki right or wrong.

Now, let me clear bold part with my little understanding. In Islam, Quran teaches that God is One who created the whole universe including living and non-living things. Including seen and unseen like Angels and Jinn etc. We believe it is this same One God who created humans, muslims and non-muslims whether we believe Him or not.

An herbalist who calls on satan etc and his/her request is answered or met, we Muslims do not believe it is satan that granted his/her wish(es). We believe it is same God, Allah. The problem however is calling God almighty and ascribing His Majestic Attributes to and through other means, His creation and assuming the creation (like Jesus etc) is God. That's where major problem is. And if you claim Allah is not the same as God (I dont know about Yahweh), then, maybe you need to do a little research what Jesus(p) called God. He didnt call Him "Yahweh" or God. He called Him [size=15pt]Allaha[/size]. I think we discussed this before.

Allah is the proper and unique name for God. Jesus(p) did not speak english. Therefore, he could not have called Him God. Matter of fact, the word GOD is mockery if you spell it backward. But if you spell Allah backward you still get the same pronunciation, the same meaning. Allah Akbar (God Is Greatest)

You are even making things worse by saying God is not the same as Allah which implies that Christian God is not the same as Muslim God. The implication is YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN ONE GOD.

Understand?

The Allaha Jesus called sent Him in fulfilment of the promise to Abraham and in performance of the New Covenant prophesied! Not the same as the modus operandi of Allah!
Well, here I stand, Yahweh and Allah are not the same.

Empiree:
Let's be frank with ourselves. We talking about SALVATION here. Forget about him being atheist. He did raise points that Muslims raised too.

Yes, I understand atheists say some things from their perceptive sometimes that are not necessarily right. But in this thread by WORDWORLD you can see annunaki's doctrine is different from yours. Is he right or you're right?.

At the time of Jesus, we had the Jews and the Samaritans. Before then we had the pharisees and the sadduccees. After Christ we've had various movements and sects some differing on non-essentials while others differing on major issues. As to who is right/scriptural, this will only be dealt with if he wants a discussion on it or opens a thread (like bin-gbabo does)stating his beliefs and the basis for such.

Remember we had fair debate sometimes back and you "proved" how Jesus had "always" being God, part of God, one of the triune gods from Old Testament. But here Annunaki said it is NOT so. You didn't succeed in the thread either.

noted.

What we are saying is you guys have major theological differences. A christian can believe Jesus is God and Son of God (you) and still stay christian. A christian can believe Jesus is Son of God but not God yet remains christian. A christian can believe in trinity but stays christian. A christian who doesnt believe in trinity also stays christian.

well, the best we are allowed to do in Scripture is to test all things and admonish or correct. If accepted, fine. If rejected, then the Day will declare it.

These are separate doctrines. Since God is One according to both sides, both doctrines can not be right at the same time.

The rejection of the Trinity is not new. Those who rejected this, the Sabellianists/Modalists as early as the third(3rd) century, were known generally to be the heretics meaning the Trinity is not a creation of catholicism afterall! Sabellianism was the effort of one man to make a Mystery agree to rational thinking and that is the root of many movements applied to various issues but the Bible remains the same.
We also have the JWs that claim Jesus was an Angel. They also dont realise that they are only repeating the views of the deceptive Gnostics who Paul refuted in Colossians and John in 1 John.

In Islam however, no Muslim would say Muhammad is God. The moment you say that, you are out of the fold. We do not discount that. No muslim, no mater the sects believe any God's prophet is God


. We may have differences in application of Law, fiqh (jurisprudence) etc but NOT tawheed (God's Oneness) which is foundation on which Islam is built.

Well, like I said in that other thread, we are not referring to the same God. Yahweh Who made the promise to Abraham and initiated both Covenants is not the same as Allah.(or you may want to show where in speaking of Mohammed's prophethood, Allah referred to any of these 3 points).

Our point is, in Christianity, your differences are deep when it comes to foundation which Christianity is built upon. Note that Muslims dont joke with this foundation because this is, according to "Abrahamic religion", the only non-forgivable sin.

Factions and sects exist because we have an enemy whose most powerful tool is deception. Fortunately himself simply recycles old and forgotten(but recorded) methods.

.

WORDWORLD:
STORY STORY STORY....................ALL CONJECTURE. YOUR OWN PERSONAL THINKING. NOT A UNIVERSALITY IN CHRISTIANITY.

personal thinking while the records are there for all to see?

IF YOU SAY THE OLD TESTAMENT COULD ONLY COMMENCE WHEN GOD MADE A CONVENANT WITH THE ISRAELITES.

But the book starts with Genesis which mentioned not the ISRAELITE but containing a key foundation of Christianity which is the ORIGINAL SIN.

This is why you need to humble yourself and not act authoritative!
That the book starts with Genesis does not mean the Old Covenant started in the beginning! What we have in Genesis is God's promise to Abraham which is the basis of both Old and New Testaments! People call the Pentateuch the Law because Moses authored it but Genesis and early parts of Exodus were more of an Inspired study in History.

Without the original sin there is no need of Jesus dying on the cross. NOT AT ALL.
[quote]No one on planet earth can ever disprove the fact that Christianity is a CONTRADICTORY SYSTEM . it is a running around the circle in the most ILLOGICAL manner full of conjectures and confussions. ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THE WHOLE OF THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD?

wish you started your reply with this paragraph. Well, hold tight to your opinion; its your right after all.

urahara:
So u ve read it that's good. You say the judaism is a radical departure from xtianity. Thats true, but annunaki do u also know the god of the old testament , is the god of the new testament as well . he is no better than allah.

Now pay close attention to the highlighted words. The OT could only commence when God had made a covenant/testament with the Israelites and the terms thereof was known:

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.[/b]
Exodus 24:7,8

A picture of what happened here is given in Deuteronomy 27: 14,15:


14 And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice,

15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

HAving thus subscibed willingly, it is therefore expected that God will warn that if this covenant be broken, there will be dire consequences!

Now you may ask, what of those nations that God sent them to destroy? See below:

Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: [b]but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Deuteronomy 9:5


Now the reasons are given hence God, the Judge of the Whole Earth, saw it fit to drive those nations out. Reason? Their cup was full.

But they had no laws from God? Read through Genesis and see that even before the law, God revealed Himself to people generally. Some reverenced Him, others despised. For example, Job, Enoch etc were neither an Israelite nor a person under the law but his reverence to God was outstanding! They were faithful to the light they had. In the NT, we find God sending an Angel to Cornelius to lead him to the Gospel. etc

Having said that, did God spare Israel when they did similar things? NO! In the same fashion, other nations eg Babylon, Assyria etc were sent to destroy them (the Israelites). Read through Judges to get a picture.

2 Chronicles 36:16-19
but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

17 Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand.

18 And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of his princes; all these he brought to Babylon.

19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof

If u beliv in d doctrine of the trinity , the founder of xtianity commited barbaric acts in the old testament. Since the doctrine says jesus is god . therefore the founder of your religion is just as barbaric as muhammad .

Rather, it was a case of a Covenant, Justice and Retribution as already explained.

If the christain god , yahweh has perfect morality and kindness, then all his acts must be moral and kind. Would u say his barbaric acts are perfect and kind

If you call them barbaric, against what standard do you make that judgement?

Jonathan was willing to go the extra mile for his friend david . being of great help to david and saving david s life.
You would agree that this is a good action .

Why then dont christians say this act was confined to judaism alone . this is because you know deep down that this action is good.

But the Jews were the offsprings of the people who made that covenant with God? And yes, there were people from other nations who joined themselves to God too.

When u are faced with verses of yahweh s barbaric acts you use the cop out of saying that it was in judaism.


So i ask u.......



Is the god of the old testament. Not the god of the new testament.

Sure HE is. Besides, you appear to downplay that it is this same God that delivered Israel from Egypt,
sent Jonah to warn Nineveh and gladly forgave when Nineveh repented,
that brought Nebuchadnezzar back to his senses and blessed him exceedingly even though he was a Babylonian king,
that appeared to Abimelech to prevent him from sinning against Him,
that commanded Israel to show love to the Egyptians after they were delivered(Deut 23:7)
etc

malvisguy212:
bro, Good to see you.

Thanks a lot.

Empiree:
Scholar8200, you are welcome!

But why didnt you respond to Annunaki here?

www.nairaland.com/3086804/annunaki-read-old-testament/4#45447102

Fine, the thread had its focus - an atheist asking him about the OT. Therein, he stated what his convictions were (I only saw the one where he said he cared not if what he believed contradicts others' belief, and I saw that because of the mention of my username and re-quoting of same by him otherwise, it was a thread I had no interest in.)

Perhaps if he decides to open a thread on that issue, then we can discuss it there.(At least I have done same with other NL christians on some issues)

Matthew's quoting of Hosea which is here adjudged as twisting! Let the op or any of his supporters show us where from history, the HEBREW audience of Matthew's Gospel(at least they were the custodians of the OT, not the op) accused him of misquoting that verse from Hosea, then we can talk.

Moreover, I am surprised that there are some here that make disjointed and zero-correlation claims about portions of the same OT as referring to Mohammed!(neither a jew nor prophesied), but condemn a Gospel written to Hebrews who should have attacked this Hosea quote if it was indeed a lie.

haffaze777:
The Lie
In Galatians 2, Paul makes mention of the same first trip to
Jerusalem as mentioned above. It is obvious from the subject
matter alone that it is a reference to the same Jerusalem
council meeting.
First, let's take an overview of the subject matter of the book
of Galatians.
Christianity fondly refers to Galatians as "the Magna Carta
of spiritual emancipation" . One reference says, "…it
remains as the abiding monument of the liberation of
Christianity from the trammels of legalism." It is evident
to the reader of Galatians that Paul’s position against the Law
is quite hostile.

Rather Paul's position towards those that were subverting the believers at Galatia and the Gentiles in general; a position held by ALL the elders and disciples:

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:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment
Acts 15:22,24
Hence it will be wrong to attribute this to Paul alone.

His intention is to convince the Galatian
believers not to give the time of day to the "Judaizers" like
Peter who were teaching the Law of Moses including
circumcision.

But Peter was in the Council in Acts 15 ? If you claim Peter taught the Law, would you mind giving evidence thereto from the Epistles 1 & 2 Peter.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul
twice commands the Galatians to curse anyone who teaches
anything other than his doctrine. Galatians 1:8,9 Among his
numerous anti-Law (anti-nomian) arguments are these
quotes:
"…for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be
justified." Galatians 2:16
"But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of
God is evident…" Galatians 3:11

A position held by all the Apostles and disciples as Acts 15:6-11 shows!

Deuteronomy 6:25 rebuffs these statements when
Moses says: "Then it will be righteousness for us,
if we are careful to observe all these
commandments before the Lord our God, as He
has commanded us."

But remember that the Law was a part of a whole - Covenant! And that God revealed through Jeremiah how that Israel broke this covenant!! That quote by Moses came before the OT could settle down, note the phrase IF WE ARE CAREFUL TO OBSERVE. Did they? NO.

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law…"
Galatians 3:13
The law is not a curse , nor does it of itself bring
one. Breaking the law brings a curse. Therefore it
is man and not the Law that is the problem.
" Indeed I , Paul, say to you that if you become
circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing . And I
testify again to every man who becomes circumcised
that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have
become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be
justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:2-4
He even drops his own name as the foremost
authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal
lie.

He was an Apostle to the Gentiles. Besides, we should wonder whence the audacity to write a recognized Epistle if the addressee did not recognize him as their leader!

As regards his apostleship, even Peter acknowledged it and that is why they could send the letter in Acts 15 by him. (why didnt they go like they did in Acts 8?)

"For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even this: ‘You
shall love your neighbor as yourself’". Galatians 5:14
This is only the second greatest commandment.
Matt. 22:36-40 says; "Teacher, which is the great
commandment in the law?" Yahshua said to him,
"’You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
This is the first and the great commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your
neighbor as yourself.’ On these two
commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." 1 John 5:3 describes how we are to
fulfill the first and greatest commandment to love
God with all our heart: "For this is the love of
God, that we keep His commandments. And His
commandments are not burdensome."

Correct. These and Paul in Galatians agree when we refer to God's promise of the New Covenant to write His Laws in the heart.

Paul is so filled with malice toward those who preach
circumcision that he wishes they would take the knife and cut
their own joysticks off! Galatians 5:11,12 He refers to
circumcision as "the mutilation" in Philippians 3:2. His
attitude toward the Law and those who teach it is obviously
quite hostile.

Just as Jesus said anyone that deceives believers was better off at the bottom of the sea (thanks to a millstone).
A tour of the Bible will show you God's reaction to deceivers.

Now, keeping Paul's anti-Law rhetoric in mind, take a look at
Paul’s recollection to the Galatians of his first meeting with
the Jerusalem council.
"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem
with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went
up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel
which I preach among the Gentiles… But from those
who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it
makes no difference to me; God shows personal
favoritism to no man— for those who seemed to be
something added nothing to me . But on the contrary,
when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised
had been committed to me, as the gospel for the
circumcised was to Peter… and when James, Cephas,
and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas
the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the
Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only
that we should remember the poor, the very thing
which I was also eager to do." Galatians
2:1,2,6-7,9-10
This is Paul’s version of what happened. When he said that
the church in Jerusalem desired "only" that he remember the
poor, how could this be anything less than an outright lie?

Note the highlighted and realise that this was not a rehearsal of the happenings at the Council but a private meeting for a different purpose. You omitted this:

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, [size=14pt]but privately to them[/size] which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Galatians 2:2

Remember, Paul was forcefully trying to persuade the
Galatians to not be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses.
This is the foundational theme of the entire book. What's
more, Paul was clearly telling the Galatians that he had
Jerusalem’s full support... in spite of the fact that he didn't
think he needed it from those who only "seemed" to be
something and "added nothing" to him.

Sure!

In light of his
message, he could not afford to tell the truth, that the official
edict from Jerusalem included four requirements from the
Law of Moses, three of which were dietary. So he told them a
lie when he said, "They desired only that we remember the
poor". The official letter read that the Gentiles were to
"keep themselves from things offered to idols, from
blood, from things strangled, and from sexual
immorality." And this lie isn't just a matter of conveniently
leaving some things out, he left all the commands out, and
then replaced them with one that wasn't even in the official
letter. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of "the
poor"!

Again remember, that Acts 15 shows us the council that decided the error brought in as Acts 15:1,2 shows. However, this session on accountability by Paul and the Apostles was not recorded! Their acceptance of his apostleship to the Gentiles is seen in their sending him to them with the letter, introducing him therein!

And then Paul has the gall to state it like, "...and they
didn't need to tell me that. I have always been eager to
remember the poor. See, those who only seemed to be
something can't even add that to me." What is it going to
take for Christianity to see the lies and incredible arrogance
of Paul? Read the passage above again if necessary.
Paul begins telling the Galatians of his contacts with the
Jerusalem Messianic leaders in Galatians 1:18. Just before
this, in verses 11 and 12, he had told them that his doctrine
was given to him by divine revelation. In other words, it
didn't come from the original apostles who had spent three
and a half years with Yahshua and only "seemed" to be
pillars of the church. When Paul tells of his meeting with the
Jerusalem leaders, his attitude was that the original apostles
were of no significance to him, but... if it mattered to the
Galatians... he indicated in Galatians 2:9 that he still had
Peter, James, and John’s full support anyway. This is the
picture Paul is painting.

Rather what I find is the fact that we only retain our honour when we are true to the faith in other words, NO man is bigger than the Word (Peter himself wrote that he and others were to be examples to the believers 1 Peter 5). This position was necessary because of the influence such dissimulation of Peter might have (being a top leader) and lest the believers excuse themselves by that action!

After mentioning his contact with Peter, James and John the
first time in Jerusalem to discuss what should be required of
the Gentiles, he says these words.
"Now concerning the things which I write to you,
indeed, before God, I do not lie." Galatians 1:20
Paul actually had the gall to preface a lie with an oath of
honesty! One has to ask the question why he felt compelled
in the first place to assure the Galatians he was not lying!

Yes, the judaizers (like you are doing)sought to sell their lies by , among other things, slandering Paul! (see 2 Corinth 10 - 13)

Yahshua had a few words to say concerning this type of oath:
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old,
‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your
oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all,
neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne’ nor by the
earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is
the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your
head, because you cannot make one hair white or
black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’, and your ‘No’ be ‘No’.
For whatever is more than these is from the evil
one." Matthew 5:33-37

And what did Paul swear by? NOTHING! I perceive it was his own way of saying Jesus', "verily verily I say to you"

Paul’s own words convict him again. He was a liar, along
with being a false apostle just as Yahshua had commended
the Ephesian church for exposing. He was a liar regardless of
whether or not the Ephesian church was aware of this
particular lie.

A liar they exposed while the same Paul was the one that preached Christ to them (Acts 19:6,9,10,11,17-20)? And also wrote an Epistle to them? What evidence of 'lies'do you see in that Epistle to the Ephesians?

But it is not at all unlikely that the Ephesian
church was very familiar with both Paul’s letter to the
Galatians and the official letter from the Jerusalem council.
The Jerusalem council letter would have been circulated to all
the Gentile churches, and we know that Paul’s letters were
being copied and circulated among the churches as well .
Peter makes this apparent in 2 Peter 3:15,16 when he speaks
of Paul and the content of " all his epistles". Peter could not
say this without being familiar with most if not all of them!
One can also see from the passage that he assumes his
readers are aware of them as well. (2 Peter 3:15,16 is the
passage in which Peter appears to call Paul's letters
Scripture. I deal with this issue in chapter 10.)
The fact that Paul lied to the Galatians is by itself enough to
establish him as a liar, but once a person crosses that line he
will likely continue the practice. His lie to the Galatians is by
no means his only lie.

Whoever you,the op,copied this from must have been or is one of the descendants of the crew of judaizers who crucified Jesus and persecuted the Apostles and Paul (using the same weapons of slander and murder) simply because they were moved with envy.

The verse has explained itself bro. Let God be true and all men (especially dissenters) liars!

promise101:
Yea, amen too!!

God is NOT about to grant us grace to serve him, he has ALREADY granted us the grace and it happen at the cross! So, when we do anything that makes no relevance of the cross, we frustrate that grace.

But Hebrews 4 says to come boldly to the Throne of Grace that we might receive... Grace in time of need?

GALATIANS 2:21;"What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and IT DIDN'T WORK. So I QUIT being a “law man” so that I could be God’s man. Christ’s life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is NO LONGER IMPORTANT that I appear righteous before YOU or have your good opinion, and I AM NO LONGER DRIVEN TO IMPRESS GOD. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not “mine,” but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that(right living, law, works of righteousness). Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and FREE in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to REPUDIATE God’s grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then CHRIST DIED UNNECESSARILY.(MSG version).


And as well his grace shown to us at the cross enables us to follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man will see Him. And the holiness, which will make us see him, is not the holiness that comes through law keeping(right living), it the holiness that makes God(himself) holy, which cannot to be established but imputed on us on the BASIS OF FAITH.

Indeed, it (holiness) is a fruit that proves we have really received that we claim by faith.

Our righteousness and holiness is a person, Jesus and not the keeping of the law, which ends up making it's followers accursed.

1cor 1:30. New International Version
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus,
who has become for us wisdom from God--that is,
our righteousness, HOLINESS and redemption.

So, when we put our trust and rely on him we become righteous and holy, not having our own righteousness which comes from "DOs and DON'Ts"
, the law.

Indeed, and that makes us shine before men who will see our good works and glorify God (not us).

Phil 3:9;"and may be found in Him [BELIEVING AND RELYING ON HIM], NOT HAVING any righteousness of MY OWN(dos and don'ts)derived from [MY OBEDIENCE TO] the Law(right living) and its rituals, but [possessing] that [GENUINE RIGHTEOUSNESS] which comes THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST, the righteousness which comes FROM GOD ON THE BASIS OF FAITH.(AMP)

I agree with you on this. He has ALREADY given us the grace, at the cross, to be watchful so that we can be that Glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

We shall be without wrinkles or spot, NOT BECAUSE we were watchful(works), or because we lived rightly(works) and strived to look sinless perfect by WORKS(which we know no one is justified with).

RATHER, we shall be without wrinkles or spot, BECAUSE we believe that we have been eternally Justified by his blood, ALL our eternal sins being laid on christ and him being punished for it, in exchange for ETERNAL SALVATION(heb 5:9). And the penalty NEVER ended at the cross, he had to go to hell also, so that we won't have to go!

But we still need to watch and be steadfast in the faith and keep ourselves (1 John 5) because we have an adversary. No need to watch if no danger of being defiled existed.

That's why we will continue to trust in him for our righteousness because he is the AUTHOR and the FINISHER of our FAITH.

Very true. We trust in Him Who works in us both to will and do of His good pleasure and as He does, we , by faith, work out our salvation with fear and .trembling

promise101:
Ahh! My very good friend, are you back?
It has been a long timeooo!

Okay, I have to settle facts here.

What divorces really need is not OPs like this, rather the gospel of grace that can make them happy(joyful) about the finished work of Christ, and making to reconcile with no condemnation and love.

I still not condemn the fact that the divorcees should reconcile , rather I fight that even when they are divorcees, for the sake of Christ death, they still have the FREE gift of "no condemnation"(eternal life) which is on the basis of faith alone and not works, if they can rely on the righteousness of Jesus. If you say no, then it makes no sense in christ's death, which occurred in place of the ungodly (including divorcees).


First of all, I appear passionate because I know where the op is about to head people to. As the bible say;"By their fruits we shall know them. And that is to rely on their right living, trying to please God by their works of righteousness with the MOTIVE of looking righteous before God, which of works of the law, which will end up making the person accursed.

Gal 3:10;
"Anyone who tries to please God by obeying the Law (right living) is under a curse. The Scriptures say, “Everyone who doesn’t obey everything in the Law is under a curse.”(CEV)


You know, there are messages that when not given, in respect to the FREE gift of no condemnation(cross), will cause people to live their lives in fear and works, to deliver themselves from the punishment of the sins Jesus was punished for, as if they are the author and finisher of their righteousness. And that simply makes them accursed!

Phil 3:19; made it clear that the righteousness God approves, is not our own right living(righteousness), or the righteousness that come through TRYING to please God but, the righteousness of Christ, HIMSELF.


Before you talk about forgiveness, you have to understand what forgiveness really is!

First of all, why are we forgiven? How?

We are not forgiven because we ask for forgiveness, repent(change of mind) and do restitution. BUT BY HIS BLOOD! THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS(remission) OF SIN, WITHOUT SHED BLOOD.

Heb 9;22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION OF SIN."

When a criminal is found guilty and condemned to death imprisonment in a law court, no matter how the criminal ask for forgiveness, his penalty cannot be cancelled. The ONLY way the criminal can receive forgiveness is when someone OFFERS HIMSELF, to take the place of the criminal and take the penalty of his crime. In our case, we were condemned to eternal death, NOT FOR OUR PAST SINS, BUT FOR OUR ETERNAL SINLESS IMPERFECTION(including divorce). Jesus came and die in our place. Now, we should know that Jesus also died for the sins of divorce. The divorcee deserves death but Jesus accepted it to be forgiven.

Our sins are not washed away by prayer of forgiven, restitution or change of mind(repentance) but our sins were washed by his BLOOD.


Restitution, which is to restore and correct our past mistakes is NEVER A REQUIREMENT OF BEING SAVED BY HIS BLOO.


READ THIS, ABOUT SIN, RESTITUTION

It is often implied in some circles that a person who
is born again will abstain from certain types or
patterns of sin. To these people, continually
committing the same sin could be convincing
evidence that salvation is lacking in the person under
scrutiny. I certainly don't intend to condone,
encourage, or make light of sin. All sin is serious and
should be so treated. Nor do I deny that the
Christian, one who is a child of God and indwelt by
the Holy Spirit, has a new nature and capacity for
living for the Lord that unsaved people do not have. I am attempting to show the inconsistency of
promoting the idea that living faithfully for the Lord
is somehow automatic for all "true" Christians. I hope
that by listing some sins which could easily apply to
many believers the need for the Free Grace position
will become obvious.


Salvation, Restitution, and Sins of Commission

Suppose a man who worked in a job where he was
in contact with money actually embezzled some of
the money entrusted to his care. Suppose the money
wasn't missed and he was never caught. Some years
later he hears a sermon in which he is told that
continuing sin proves that a person committing such
a sin was never saved in the first place or that in
order to receive the free gift of salvation one must
turn from his sins (i.e., stop sinning). Under the
theology being discussed here, it would seem that
restitution or confession to the party from whom the
money was stolen would be necessary for the man to
be saved (or to prove he is a believer). But what if the
amount of money was relatively small, say 30 cents?
And say it occurred 40 years ago when the man as a
teenager worked at an ice cream stand? I can
imagine many who hold to this persuasion telling the
man, "Forget it, you can be saved without paying
back the 30 cents." But what if the amount were
greater, say, 30 dollars? Manymight still tell him the
same thing: "Forget it." Let's keep raising the
amount. How about 300 dollars—3,000—30,000? At
what point in this theology would the "continuing
sin" of not paying back the stolen money prevent
salvation? And who decides?


This example is no bizarre daydream. Whether it's
money or some other issue, such things are surely
common in the affairs of mankind and can't be
glossed over by those who tie works onto grace in
this way. Boldfaced lies as well as subtle deception,
grumpiness, rudeness, and gossip can all fall into
this category of "continuing sins."


How many people, because of skeletons in their
closet, of one kind or another, have been made to
think that they can't be saved until they "go back
and make it right"? And how many have "gone back"
for that reason and then thought themselves saved
because they did so? Wittingly or unwittingly this
belief does not value Christ's sacrifice as adequate to
save all those who trust in Him.


If going back and correcting past wrongs is
required to receive the free gift of salvation (or
required to prove one has salvation), then we are all
"goners." What are those people thinking about who
claim salvation for themselves and who advocate the
idea that "continuing sins" disallow or disprove
salvation? Do their consciences accuse or excuse
them? Either way, such imagined personal purity is
surely as unlikely in their case as it is in the case of
any fallen human.


Salvation, Restitution, and Sins of Omission

What about neglecting the things we ought to do—
sins of omission? This might seem similar to the
failure to correct past wrongs as discussed
previously, but I'm thinking more of Christian duties.
These could include the following: Skipping prayer or
church (Heb 10:24-25), neglecting Bible study (2 Tim
2:15), not being ready with an answer when
someone asks us about the hope that lies within us
(1 Pet 3:15), ignoring the needs of others (1 John
3:17), failing to visit the orphans and widows (Jas
1:27). The list goes on. The point is that we're all
guilty, and to deny it is folly and self deception.


CHRIST'S SACRIFICE IS SUFFICIENT FOR ALL SIN.

All sin is an affront to God's holiness, whatever
"kind" or "degree," whether "large" or "small,"
"continuing" or "non-continuing," "deliberate" or "not
deliberate." The Free Grace position does not ignore
"lesser" sins, but recognizes Christ's sacrifice as
necessary and sufficient to cancel all sin and looks to
Him for salvation
. I'm not arguing here against restitution or
correcting past sins. As believers "we must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one
may receive the things done in the body, according
to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor
5:10). I am, however, attempting to show that such
"corrections" cannot be made requirements for
receiving, maintaining, or proving salvation.

Although, in many such circumstances, knowing
whether it is best to try to correct past wrongs or not
might be difficult, we can be sure that the Lord Jesus
in His atonement has forever nullified sin's power to
condemn the believer (Rom 5:8-11).
That the Lord Jesus gives eternal life to those who
trust in Him for it is good news (John 6:47; Acts 4:12;
Rom 10:15). Trying to get saved, stay saved, or prove
we are saved by undoing our wrongs is a hopeless
proposition.

God's grace is a wonderful motivation and
encouragement to faithful Christian living (Titus
2:11-12). It should not be used to promote sin (Rom
6:1-2) or viewed as something that automatically
infuses us with behavior that supposedly proves we
are saved. As Christians may we never forget our
desperate need of God's grace and may we never
cease to feel the relief of having received it.

May God grant us grace to serve Him acceptably with reverence and godly fear , enable us to follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man will see Him and give us the grace to be watchful so that we can be that Glorious church without spot or wrinkle that He wants us (and washes us in His Blood) to be, Amen.