₦airaland Forum

This globalist organizations are only interested in destroying nations inother to build their one world government.

jflower06:
Just speak concerning your own God and leave others serve whoever or whatever they want.


Why did you chose to believe Biblical stories over others?

How did Abraham worshipped God and that was accepted?

How did Abel and Cain worshipped God?

Why did Jesus had to use clay to make the blind man see?

Have you study and meditate on the ten commandments? Which one belongs to God? Those laws are used to guide the people and the society at large.

Jesus came to add only one law which I believed you know. And Bible talked much more about LOVE, it was even called God.

Humanity is the oldest and greatest form of religion.

God is greater than humanity. God comes first before humanity.
Love for God is the first commandment. If you love God you will seek to know him and do his will. those who worship idols ( serve ancestors, oracles, demi or semi gods etc) do not love God.

Order and design need structure, and structure cannot exist without exist without a God figure, a Supreme standard on which the structure forms.
God is existential for life itself to be meaningful.
There is a rising world view among scientists now and it is called intelligent design, this thought process attributes intelligence as an alternative to the non intelligent process of evolution as the explanation to the origin of life.

Atheist denying the existence of God is Just like women who says they don't need a man, but ends up buying a man's sperm from sperm bank

isrealoski:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I agree that God exists, and I wasn't trying to argue that He doesn't. My question was simply hypothetical: if there were no reward or punishment involved, would people still choose to do good?

Personally, my answer is yes. I believe goodness should come from genuine conviction and not only from fear of consequences.

As a Christian, I believe all goodness ultimately comes from God, but I also believe God desires willing hearts, not people who do right only because they are afraid.

So the purpose of my question is not to deny God, but to encourage self-refamination: why do we choose to do good?

God bless you.

people have different conviction if there is no Supreme standard then morality will just be base of individuals choice and none could be said to be good or bad just individuals taste.

Human civilization cannot exist without a God figure, someone or system that sets a standard for the whole society. Most people do not know that governments are representing God to the society, they have utimate authority in that society even if atheists forms a country they still look for a God figure because without it, the society will become like a jungle.

You see without Supreme authority you can't have anything meaningful many people don't know that one of the evidence of God is the existence of Supreme authority and every time we look for that Supreme authority in form of Government, advising someone to be moral, or setting on standard or the other you are giving evidence that there is God.

isrealoski:
I don’t believe in tribalism at all. To me, it’s often just a tool some people use to gain advantage or serve their own selfish interests. Yes, there’s nothing wrong with being around people who share your background — but when it turns into favoritism, looking down on others, or taking advantage just because “you are one of us,” that’s where I draw the line. I choose to treat everyone fairly, regardless of where they come from, which tribe they belong to, or whether they are male or female. I don’t give preferential treatment to anyone just because of who they are or where they are from.

Choosing To Be Different

Hope you know without God morality simply because a personal opinion.
According to Evolution You cannot say tribalism is bad because that us how humans evolve and tries, heck it is even against evolution not to be tribal, because you and your tribe would be out competed by others.

When you advise people to be choose to be different, hope you know you are trying to impose your belief on them.
You are trying to make yourself the moral arbitration hence taken the position of a Supreme being.

isrealoski:
A lot of people grow up being told to “follow the crowd” or “stick to your own kind,” but my experience has always been different. I grew up in a home where we had people from different backgrounds working and living with us we treated everyone with respect, gave them accommodation, and never looked down on them no matter where they came from. That upbringing shaped how I see the world today.

On Tribalism And “Us Vs Them” Mentality

There will be no basis to be moral.

uche87:
https://www.facebook.com/thevillagetowncrier

Till date Apostle Selman has not point out errors of Apostle Paul's teaching and where he encouraged fornication.
Selman is a false Apostle.

Beautiful! I pray for her family to also see the light of Jesus Christ that shined on grace.

Lucifyre:
😄 I told you, I knew you'd mess up. So it's demonstrated and confirmed you're talking nonsense. I purposefully said this:

“Again, show us where in the texts the authors identify themselves that made you know who they were, and also show us where they claim to be eyewitnesses to the events. Inability to do the above or attempts to tangent away would just easily demonstrate you are talking nonsense.”

None of the above was even answered. Instead, you tangented to dates, manuscripts, church tradition, etc., because you just had to copy-paste from an apologetics site. I clearly said scholarly sources, and I never asked you for dating in the first place. And none of the sources you gave me even establish what I asked you to establish.

But the funny part is that even your own copy-pasted apologetic source has messed you up.

«“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you...”»

Your own source, which I didn't cite — you did — is basically saying exactly what I told you. Luke first of all absolutely does not identify himself, and does not present himself as an eyewitness. He says these things “were handed down to them by people who were eyewitnesses,” and that he himself investigated the accounts to write them down.

So an anonymous author's statement that traditions came from eyewitnesses does not become evidence that you know the author personally interacted with those eyewitnesses. Circular reasoning at it's finest. Btw you sure you know the difference btw a claim and evidence? You still have to establish who the author was and what evidence connects that person to those eyewitnesses. Citing a claim as evidence for said claim is what someone who claims to "know" scholarship does when they don' have a clue.

Like, did you even read the thing before posting? Obviously not, you just copy pasted 😂.

They're "eyewitnesses" and spoke to "eyewitnesses", but Matthew and Luke had to rip off "word for word" from Mark for events they supposedly experienced and witnessed themselves — your own evidence highlighted this not me.

Even Bart Ehrman, whom your source quoted for the dates — which I didn't ask about — points out explicitly that the Gospels are anonymous and none of the authors identify themselves by name. Even Luke's identification was about a century after it was written, appearing in Irenaeus.

Which was what I asked you about, but you had to tangent to dates and church history. As if later church fathers attributing names to the texts doesn't demonstrate that those people actually wrote them. Identify in rhe texts - No. You're pointing me to church fathers.

You basically failed, like I said you would, to demonstrate where Matthew, Mark, Luke or John identify themselves in the texts like I asked, nor where they claimed to be eyewitnesses. Instead, you cited where it was the opposite, and this is after copying and pasting an apologetics website talking about dating, when I clearly asked for a reputable scholarly source — even though the website cited abt 2 or so scholars who ended up contradicting you.

Lastly, you failed to point out any of the so-called numerous contradictions my previous post was riddled with. Not one, I wonder why lol.

At this point, it's quite clearly demonstrated you're talking nonsense and haven't got a clue about the scholarship.

First you said the gospels weren't written in the 1st century after you were debunked you ran to another questions.

You have to first acknowledge that you were wrong and ignorant else I won't answer anymore further question from you.

The scripture is clear, it is appointed man once to die and after this the judgment.
And Also, it also warns youth that God will bring them into judgment.

Ecclesiastes 11:9 Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.

Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

meobizy:
Somebody will now tell me that God will judge her for a mere sixteen years of existence. Whoever penned the bible back in the day would be locked in a mental asylum in the modern world.

As long as you know the difference between good and evil, you must face Judgment whether nine years or one hundred years.

tanigororo:
So he is a petty god

So the court is petty for sentencing a murderer to life in prison?

judewrites:
Hmmmmmm.....I do use ai to prepare Bible teaching, but I edit as much as possible and pray over it to allow myself feel free in teaching the material as Anointed.

It's a different thing to download materials and teach verbatim without praying.

No, sermon is not an academic lecture, it must be from The Spirit of God. A pastor must prayerfully study the scripture himself and meditate on the scriptures.

tanigororo:
You mean Hypocrite God, who cannot forgive any sin. At least he should have forgiven Satan, forgive Adam. He can only forgive those who killed his son

Did Satan tell you he need forgiveness? You are not entitled to God's forgiveness, God is just for throwing you or anyone else who has sinned against him into hell. God offering forgiveness is on his own compassion and only those who come to him in repentance can recieve forgiveness of Sin.

mytrugistslog:
Rhapsody of Realities by Pastor Chris. Mon Sep 21 2026

UNVEILING OF A DIVINE UNION

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit (1 Corinthians 6:17).

The moment you were born again, you were brought into an inseparable union with the Lord. The Bible doesn’t say you received help from Him or became associated with Him from a distance. Rather, it says, “he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit”; not two spirits trying to work together but one inseparable spirit.

This is who the new creation is; the Spirit of God has been so mingled with your spirit. This is far beyond religion. The Apostle Peter gives us further insight into this in 2 Peter 1:4. He says through God’s exceeding great and precious promises, we’ve become “partakers of the divine nature.”

[b]The expression translated “partakers of the divine nature” comes from the Greek construction, “koinonoi theias physeos,” meaning associates or companions of the God-kind. What a revelation! By natural birth, you came into this world as a member of ‘mankind.’ But through Christ Jesus, you’ve become an associate of the God-kind, a member of the heavenly pantheon.

This doesn’t mean you suddenly know everything God knows experientially; notwithstanding, you’re fully divine just as a child born into a human family is fully human even before he or she matures physically and intellectually. A child at five months old may not walk, speak clearly, or understand like an adult, but that child is no less human than his parents.

Likewise, in Christ, you’re not growing to become more divine. You’re only growing in the knowledge and expression of your divine nature. This is why the Bible tells us to “…grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ...” (2 Peter 3:18). The growth is in knowledge, understanding, and manifestation. The divine life is already in you fully.[/b]

Refuse to see yourself as weak, ordinary, or merely human. There’s a higher life in you; the God-life. Think, talk, and act in agreement with your divine nature, origin and identity. You’re one with the Lord—replete with all His organic and existential attributes. Praise God!


Prayer / Confession
How great thou art, O, Lord! Thank you for bringing me into union with you through Christ Jesus. I think, talk, and act in agreement with your divine nature in me. I’m replete with all the organic and existential attributes of divinity. I manifest your wisdom, excellence, victory and glory today, in Jesus’ Name. Amen.

Further study
2 Peter 1:4; Colossians 1:26-27; John 17:21-23; Ephesians 5:30

1-year bible reading plan
Galatians 5:16-26; Isaiah 6-8

2-year bible reading plan
1 Timothy 5:11-18; Jeremiah 39

There is heavy mixture of gnosticism in here.
Satan loves mixing truth with lies not to make it obvious.

There no pantheon of God's in heaven, there one God.
Jesus is not a Godkind, God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are the same God not gods.
Pastor Christ is renown for teaching heresy. Beware!!!

Lucifyre:
When you asked for evidence did I ask you what type of evidence? Nope! Cause the evidence is there and I simply presented the facts. For you to ask "what kind of evidence" shows how empty your claims are, cause there's obviously no evidence to support it save for bare assertions, else u'd have simply shown it. You can assert as much as you want, wouldn't make it factual.

I also find it ironic you mention scholarship when you've not even been able to cite simple evidence from scholarship to support any single thing u've stated, cause obviously you don't know what you're talking about and I would demonstrate that quite easily. So yeah go ahead, cite for us any peer reviewed peice of scholarship from a reputable scholar from any of the top institutions that claim as a matter of fact, the gospels are eye witness testimonies and were written by the authors they were attributed to and that the accounts of the gospels are historically factual.

I'll wait, just one, link me to the paper and educate ignorant me on this "Basic Scholarship", should be easy right lol. Again show us where in the texts the authors identify themselves that made you know who they were and also show us where they claim to be eyewitnesses to the events. Inability to do the above or attempts to tangent away would just easily demonstrate you are talking nonsense.

"you make zero sense, you submission is riddled with contradiction while demanding for evidence you don't know about."

So it shouldn't be difficult for you to show us just one of the contradictions and demonstrate it is indeed a contradiction seeing as it is riddled with it. No?! This is what happens when the brain only knows dogma, facts begin to scare and confuse it, so it would have been surprising if it made any sense to you at all. Tick tock, I await my education on basic scholarship, I love learning and exposing confident ignorance.

the majority of NT scholars date the gospels sometime between these ranges below:Early manuscript evidence
NT scholars almost without exception agree that the synoptic Gospels (e.g. Matthew, Mark, and Luke) predate the gospel of John. Even though John claims to be an eyewitness (Jn. 19:35), it wasn’t uncommon for earlier generations of critics to date John as late as AD 150. They claimed that “John” was actually written by his disciples—called the “Johannine School” in Alexandria, Egypt. Indeed, critic F. C. Baur dated Acts and Mark to roughly AD 150, and he dated John to AD 160-170.

No one dates John this late anymore. One reason for rejecting such a critical view is that we actually possess a fragment of John that dates to ~AD 125! The John Rylands Fragment (P52) is quite small—only 2.5 by 3.5 inches—and it contains John 18:31-33, 37-38.

In addition, we have several manuscripts that date Matthew and Luke quite early. Since most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark, then means that Mark would need to be dated even earlier.

Virtually everyone agrees that Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, and last of all, John wrote his gospel. So, if we can determine a fixed date John, this means that the synoptic Gospels must’ve been written even earlier. Since we have an existing manuscript of John that dates to ~AD 125, this must mean that John wrote his gospel in the first century AD. These additional manuscripts of Matthew and Luke only add to the case that the gospels date to the first century AD.

Early citations from the Church Fathers
Historians refer to the early Christian leaders, thinkers, and writers as the Church Fathers. Their writings only confirm what we have already seen: The gospels already existed by the end of the first century AD, and indeed, the Church Fathers were already citing their biographies of Jesus’ life. Consider several examples:

The Didache (AD 95) is most likely the earliest extra-biblical manuscript. In 8.2, the Didache quotes from Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:5, 9-13).

Clement of Rome (AD 95) dates very early as well, because he mentions the Temple still standing (ch.41). And Clement cites Matthew (1 Clement 13.2) and the other Synoptic Gospels (1 Clement 24.5; 46.8 ).

The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 100) cites Matthew 22:14 (4.14). Indeed the language is “nearly identical Greek.”

Ignatius (AD 100) cites the gospel of Matthew several times in his letters (Ephesians, 14.2; Smyrnaeans 6.1; Polycarp 2.2), as well as John 3:8 (Philadelphia 7:1).

Polycarp (~AD 120-135) cites Matthew (2.3; 7.2; 12.3), Mark (5.2), and Luke (2.3).

Tatian (Assyria, AD 173) created his Diatessaron that harmonized the four gospels (dia means “through” and tessaron means “four”). Again, this shows that the Gospels were known and in use to the point that Syriac Christians were writing harmonies of them.

Again, this would place the Gospels at least within the first century AD. None of this is controversial at this point. Indeed Bart Ehrman states that “most scholars” agree on a first century dating of the four gospels.

But can we date the Gospels even earlier?

Early dating for the Book of Acts
Whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts. In fact, virtually no one “would dispute this basic observation.” Just look at the introduction of each book, and notice the similarities between the two.

Comparison of Luke-Acts

Luke
Acts
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God

We would date Matthew to the 60s AD. Irenaeus (AD 180) stated that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome” (Against Heresies 3.1.1; cf. Church History 5.8.2). This would place the writing of his gospel around the mid-sixties AD (AD 61-68?).

Date of Mark
Due to the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62) and Markan Priority, we would date Mark in the late 40s or early 50s AD. In addition to that evidence, Papias (AD 130) states that “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, [and] he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Church History 3.39.15). If Nero executed Peter in AD 67, then Mark’s gospel would pre-date this time. While Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Mark “handed down” his gospel after the martyrdom of Peter (Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Church History 5.8.3), this could simply mean that Mark widely disseminated his gospel after their deaths.

Date of Luke
Again, based on the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62), we would date Luke in the mid to late 50s AD. In addition, several sources state that Luke wrote under Paul’s supervision (Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen Church History 6.25.4). Since Paul died under Nero in AD 67, this would place the writing of Luke before this time.

Date of John
This leaves us with John. This gospel is quite difficult to date. D.A. Carson holds to a tentative date of AD 80 to 85—though he states that any date from AD 55 to 95 is possible. Likewise, J. Ramsey Michaels dates the gospel to the second half of the first century (AD 50-100), though he leans toward a date after AD 70. Following the work of J.A.T. Robinson, Leon Morris dates the gospel of John before AD 70—perhaps as early as the AD 50’s or 60’s. We aren’t exactly sure when to date John, but as you can see, we are in good company!

Further Reading
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke (InterVarsity Press, 1992).

Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Publishing Co., 1987), pp.545-547.

^
Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), p.119.

^
P.H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), p.366.

^
See the Muratorian Fragment (AD 170); Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen, Church History 6.25.4.

^
Robinson also argues that this is stock language for a parable—not a strict prediction at all. John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), pp.20-21.

^
D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), p.82, 85.

^
J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), p.38.

^
Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), pp.29-30.Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001).

John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976).

References


Source; https://evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-new-testament/evidence-for-an-early-dating-of-the-four-gospels

Lucifyre:
The fact that you have no evidence that any of the claimants wrote it for one. The fact that none of the writers identify themselves in the texts. The fact that the supposed writers were illiterate peasants in a time period when the literacy rate was less than 1%.

what kind of evidence are you seeking for? The four books of the gospel are themselves historical records and many historians and scholars have certified it to be so. Paul was a very learned man, Luke was a doctor, there were people withing the Christian community who could read and write, according to church tradition John mark wrote for Peter.

The fact the supposed writers spoke Aramaic and not sophisticated Koine greek which the texts were written in. The fact that none of the earliest manuscripts of the texts have any named authors on them. The fact none of the texts were written in 1st person and all in 3rd person. The fact the texts themselves don't even claim to be eye witness testimony.

koin greek was the official language at that time. Most of it was written in third person, Do you know about reported speech?

The fact the texts were written at least 4 decades after the supposed event and get basic facts about the time period wrong and this hasn't even scratched the surface. Virtually all study bibles even admit it that they're anonymous as seen in the SS taken from the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. This is basic stuff in scholarship.

you don't know basic stuff in scholarship.

four decades is well withing the lifetime of the Apostles. The gospels are not anonymous, the gospels have always being known to be an account by the designated church leaders by the church.

So it wouldn't be difficult for you to show us said evidence. It wouldn't be difficult for you to show us how illiterate peasants somehow wrote texts decades after the fact, not in their own language but in a sophisticated form of a different language. Obviously not. You can as well show us evidence of a court of law convicting on eye witness testimony alone.

you make zero sense, you submission is riddled with contradiction while demanding for evidence you don't know about.

Lucifyre:
If only you had taken your own advice you'd have known that none, absolutely none of the gospels are eye witness testimony, neither are there any contemporary accounts. Besides eye witness testimony is the most unreliable and weakest form of evidence. Take ur own advice.

ywhat evidence do you have to say that absolutely none of the gospels are eye witness testimony?
The writings of the four books of the gospel gives evidence that it was written by people who were eye witnesses themselves or who at least knew and interacted with the eye witness.

Eye witness testimony is one of the highest evidence accepted by the court.

Lucifyre:
Give us another joke.

Go and learn about eye witness testimony. The different account of the book of the gospel fit what an eye witness testimony account is.

Lucifyre:
He didn't "resurrect". People - who can't even get their story straight - claiming it, doesn't make it factual. End of story.

The diverse narration of the story of christ resurrection actually proves its reliability.

Lucifyre:
Absolutely no one has died and resurrected, all there is are numerous claims about people doing so across diff cultures without a shred of evidence to the claims to make it factual. Basically your evidence for heaven is not even evidence.

Go and find about Jesus resurrection.

ifenes:
Religion made one very powerful promise: suffer or obey today, enjoy your reward after death. The interesting part is that once you die, you cannot return to tell the rest of us whether the promise was genuine. This is genius 😂

Jesus is the only person who has died and resurrected as he promised, removing every doubt of the reality of heaven.

QuinQQ:
I sm a Christian but I think this is a rather poor angle from which to attack atheism. Is religion the source of human empathy, evolutionary social instincts, reasoning, and shared cultural agreements??
Humans are social animals. Compassion and a basic instinct to avoid causing pain are natural traits that help groups survive and cooperate.

Communities create rules snd social contracts —such as laws against theft or harm—because life works better when people agree to respect each other. Personal values also come from culture, upbringing, family, education, history, and the surrounding society, which have evolved long before and alongside organized religion!

morality does not exist in Evolution. All what you said is summarized as morality is only a tool for the propagation of the human race.
According to history humans race has always being divided into groups which each groups trying to out compete others for resources.

Hence morality would only be a means for survival for each group, hence if rape, murder will serve the community then it is right according to Evolution, which means that Evolution do not really exist. Just mere tools for survival.
Atheism has no means to justify morality apart from do what works for you.

Which prophet before Mohammad called God allah?

SmartPolician:
In life, nothing equates to money You make more impact when you are rich. In fact, a wealthy unbeliever is more useful to God than a broke born again.

If you read the Old Testament well, you will see instances where God promised to bless people with material things. With riches, a wealthy man can convert 10,000 souls for God in a week, but a poor believer will hardly win ONE soul for God.

what kind of demonic teaching is this?
I pray you repent and know God truly.

I thank God for the blood of Jesus shed for me on the cross which washed me from my sin. Every day I am filled with Joy knowing I have eternal life and therefore an eternal life of glory ahead of me, because of this I labour to reach all the fulness of Christ.

There is nothing like pope in Christianity, the office of the pope was a political creation by Rome.
The pope is pushing for a one world religious system.

dre11:
Boko Haram Used Armed Drones To Strike Army Convoy, Kill Colonel, Others In Monguno, Military Source Says




https://saharareporters.com/2026/04/13/boko-haram-used-armed-drones-strike-army-convoy-kill-colonel-others-monguno-military

you are not serious in the fight against terrorism, what stopped you for buying Drones.

Because of things like this you can buy snipper I heard you can mix it with salt and pour into your toilet once a while

Jesus second coming is at hand.
According to prophecy Israel will go through the tribulation in the tribulation they will return to their God. The hatred for the Jews is already gathering momentum. Technology and expertise cannot save Israel, no nation can save Israel, no political power can save her. Israel is still under the curse of the law and only by repenting and accepting Jesus the messiah can she be saved.

America days are numbered, there will be no help for Israel from anywhere then suddenly a world leader will rise to give peace to Israel and the Middle East, this man is called the antichrist Aka the beast, Israel will initially be deceive to think the beast is their messiah but the beast will break the covenant and Israel will go through the great tribulation.

ogascomax:
First that scripture is different from what this question is for. Nobody is telling you to treat the poor with disdain because that is what James is addressing. Everybody most be treated with love in the house of God. But it's now different when they want to recognise people's effort to see that church services and activities are going on smoothly and some other persons are making that happen. Yes you most recognise them because they are people that have money in that same church and will not support the work of God there.

Ecclesiastes 9:15-16 (KJV) Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.
Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.

You are turning scriptures upside down, no thanks to the bad theology of many of these corrupt churches.
Ecclesiastes 9:15 is only describing what goes on in this world, it wasn't endorsing it.
James is saying treat the poor and the rich equally without prefertial treatment.
When it comes to special recognition, it is meant for those who labored more not base of their resources.

Jesus specially recognized a widow even though she gave the least.

Mark 12:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

12:42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

12:43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

12:44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Kingdom reward is not base on how much you have but what you give relative to what you have.

You also wrongly interpreted

Luke 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

The parable is not about how rich materially you are but how you make use of what God give to you to be profitable to his kingdom and if you don't use what God gave you it will be taken from you.
Rewards in heaven is about the level of one's work relative to what he has. A poor person may labour more than a rich person and he will be honored more than the rich person. It is not about who is poor or who is rich but about making use of what you are given.