₦airaland Forum

Are there parts of Corinthians you believe are not meant for nobody else?
Please share them and EXPLAIN from scriptures why they are not

Thank you

shdemidemi:
Every word in the bible is God inspired, but that is not to say its a novel. We must rightly divide it to discern what is applicable and what best place us in our position as subjects, heirs and a bond servant of the Almighty God.

It is well my brother.
Which scriptures have I ignored? This is a very serious allegation.

You may want to help mbaemeka in answering me on why Paul was INSPIRED to write that in absence of Resurrection Christians were the most pitiable

Bidam:
I did and to my dismay you ignore loads of scripture and interpreted them with your opinions quoting ONLY the scripture about Paul's sufferings to best suit your erroneous theology.

I do not understand you. Are we to neglect scriptures and follow doctrines of men here?

Powerful verse my brother,
How old was King Hezekiah when he died? He is a good example of a righteous person because Holy Spirit says so

Refer to 2 Kings 18:1-3, 2 Chr 29:2

Bidam:
Care to explain why prophet David disagree with you concerning health and longevity in “The righteous shall flourish like a palm tree, he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those who are planted in the house of the Lord God shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bear fruit in old age; They shall be fresh and flourishing.” Psalm 92:12-14 (NKJV)

If you had been following and UNDERSTANDING you would not have made some statements you just did. SO I had to waste my precious time just for your sake my brother


It doesn't matter how many scriptures call on you to 'agree with God', Paul clearly states that the Christian has nothing on the non-Christian in this world. This does not mean that at any given point in time ALL Christians will fare worse than the worst non-believer, just that Christianity's value proposition is resurrection and not a health,wealth and long life bliss tapped into by tons of faith

Bidam:
You don't need to write an epistle to explain yourself o! I am very much aware of the discussions from page 1.

I am just hard press for time to offer my contributions. To summarize your premise, you are of the opinion that the storms of life does not discriminate which i agree but you have to disbelieve a plethora of scriptures that calls on believers to agree with what God says concerning them in scriptures. All the promises of God are "Yes" in Christ, He will fulfil them (2 Cor. 1:20).

My brother,
the reason I have heard you accused of circular arguments on this topic is because you fail to exhaust ANY point. You are hopping, adding assumptions and building on them. This am afraid is NO way to debate or share your faith. You will be recycling the same arguments ten years later and you will be wondering why you don't get nowhere with nobody

Paul speaking in tongues more than anybody else does not mean he spoke more languages than all combined


Some facts you have willfully ignored or are scared of confronting;
1. Nowhere are tongues used to preach the gospel
2. EDIFY means EDIFY and in NO instance nowhere in the scriptures does it mean anything else
3. Nowhere is it recorded that paul was a multilingual preacher nor that the same was a spiritual gift

Here is how I pick out indoctrination. In a debate;
1. somebody boldly makes unscriptural assertions and they can barely support them
2. They keep on repeating the assertions over and over
3. They cling to the assertions no matter how illogical or unscriptural or baseless the assertions are proved to be

shdemidemi:
You do no have to lie for God, He an defend Himself.

You and I know you have to learn to speak german if you must preach to a german.


As for Paul, whose message turned the then world on its head by the gospel of Christ; couple with the fact that he said he speaks in tongue more than most himself. I can categorically tell you that the man was gifted with speaking quite a few languages.

Not so my brother
We are not advocating ascetism of Francis of Asisi.
We are just saying that poverty,sickness and premature death among CHristians are not due to ignorance or lack of faith but facts of life to be expected as long as we are under the fallen creation and in mortal bodies.

The benefits of Christianity can't possibly be enjoyed in this environment to their fullest. This is why the creation will pass away and the mortality put on immortality.

Attempting to live in a disease-free,poverty-free and long life bliss is delusional. Reality suggests otherwise and nowhere in the scriptures do we have this teaching. And besides, NOBODY can the proponents of this doctrine name who has effectively applied this doctrine. See none of that bliss is exclusive to CHristians so even if you could point to a believer who clocked 120 years, was fully healthy and immensely wealthy, I would point to hundreds of non-Christians who have the same minus the benefit of your faith

Bidam:
And that is the reason for the Hagin's book, that Gombs opened the thread for. The extremes of poverty is what you and your cohorts are propagating which is unscriptural.

My brother,
Let me explain the thoughts behind my statements.

There is a group of people who believe and teach that Christians ought to have some serious Wealth, health and long life as this is the will of God in Christ for them. All it takes to tap into this bliss is FAITH, tons of faith. And they are as readily available as say forgiveness of sins

There has been several threads and posts questioning this position. vooks is against this teaching and among my various arguments against is, existence of Poverty, Disease and premature death in the early Christians. In other words I lack any Christian precedent for this belief or rather it is contradicted by the reality. But the proponents counter that we should not follow human examples but Christ.

The other argument I raised was in bringing up 1 Cor 15:16 where Paul raises a hypothetical question. Supposing there was no resurrection. What then would be the value of Christianity but all the benefits you acquire thereby in this life? Remember he is tackling the Corinthian Error of not believing resurrection. But the verse still demonstrates Pauline attitude towards the PRESENT life.

If there were no resurrection, a WOFer who subscribes to FAITH= Wealth,health and longevity bliss would still fare better in this world than ANY other man. In that case, Paul would not have suggested that absence of resurrection renders the average believer the most pitiable person. But he just did! Why? Because in the PRESENT life, a Christian really has nothing on the non-christian contrary to the prediction of FAITH= Wealth,health and longevity bliss Theory. This is why Resurrection offers hope because the PRESENT has little to nothing to offer the CHristian. Otherwise I'd be perfectly at ease with my health,wealth and longevity bliss

Bidam:
And i challenged him by asking him to quote where WOF said even though there was no resurrection, instead of replying me as usual, he came up with a silly question and as typical of a troll that you are, you rose to his defense with a more sillier statement that i cannot quantify.

Paraphrases are good but they often do serious injustice to the underlying message. Let's go Greek

Romans 5:17 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Where did the idea of 'reign as kings' come from?
The contrast here is between the results of sin and the results of God's goodness.
1. Sin causes DEATH to reign
2. God's righteousness cause us to reign in life

But whatever meaning you assign to 'reign in life' (and am sure it points to more than the present life just like sin consequences extend to eternity), it was not sufficient for Paul to deem Christians without any hope of resurrection as any better than the rest of humanity. This would not have been the case if believers NOW have the monopoly of reigning as kings, have wealth,health and longevity...

mbaemeka:
Vooks,


Romans 5:17 AMP

For if because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive [God's] overflowing grace (unmerited favor) and the free gift of righteousness [putting them into right standing with Himself] reign as kings in life through the one Man Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).

The word used for 'receive' here is active in the Greek. It means to take a hold of; to grasp; to grab forcefully etc. It doesn't mean to be given and then you collect it.

Now Paul is saying those who TAKE A HOLD OF the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness WILL REIGN IN THIS LIFE AS KINGS by ONE, Jesus Christ.

How can you say Jesus offers us little in this life? How can you say he offers nothing? How can you say Paul didn't teach so? What does it mean to reign in life?

Now use this verse to interpret your last two posts.

My brother,
Did you just say this? is this book inspired?

Is interpreting tongues a doctrine worth picking from Corinthians? Is paul presenting the gift as erroneous or as a matter of fact?
What about the glorious Resurrection chapter 15?

shdemidemi:
We don't need to overstretch this bro.

You agree it is a correctional book and that is what matter. There is a problem of misapplication in this church that the Apostle addressed hence we must be careful not to pick up doctrines from Paul's gentle rebuke of this church.

If we must pick up doctrines, we had better go to the doctrinal books like Roman, Thessalonians and Ephesians.

you are building on your earlier assumption that tongues are for propagating the gospel. You are yet to prove this.
The gift was not exclusive to missioners/traveling evangelists but to EVERY believer.
Who told you that Paul spoke in tongues while evangelizing?

Now, I have heard of missionaries who spoke in a local dialect without learning so the answer to your question is YES.

shdemidemi:
The tongues in Acts 2 came handy because lot of people heard them speak in their language. Paul was also blessed with this gift because it must have made his missionary work easier. He communicated with people from different tribes and dialects. And even in Corinth, there was a multitude of languages being constantly used because it was a center of East and West trade.

Now, are you saying you can find a present day tongue speaker who will go on to a mission field in Brazil and speak portuguese without prior education of the language.

Regardless of the purpose of Corinthians, we know tongues edify only it is a matter of whether it is the individual or the whole church edified

EDIFY means EDIFY and unless and until you can demonstrate that one EDIFY means something totally different from the other especially where used in one sentence/paragraph, I highly suggest you abandon this line of argument. If you won't then it is plain meaningless continuing in this discussion.


mbaemeka will tell you there is nothing that I find repulsive as traditions and doctrines of men passing as scriptures. Once again and for the last time, why does the two EDIFY mean different things to you?

shdemidemi:
We have to see this in the light of why the letter was written.

Was it a letter for self edification or the edification of the body of Christ?

The context at which 'edify' was used as regards the church is different from that of the church. another word for edify is 'build' or 'embolden'.

Do check it please.

I can't imagine them storming out testifying because we are not told they stormed out testifying. Holy Spirit has blessed me with a fertile imagination but I would rather die before I second guess His inspired text

The languages spoken in Acts 2 did exist because some people heard them and understood them. The people who understood them came from a far meaning had they not been there, the local Jews would not have understood them. In fact it is probable that it was they that read drunkenness from this experience seeing they KNEW the 120 to be Galileans and all they heard was gibberish

Paul in 1 Cor 14 would have you understand that it is perfectly possible to speak in a language nobody in the room understands. Lack of understanding does not reduce a language to nothing. So how does 'contemporary tongue speaking Christian' speak? is it because you can't understand it that you imagine it is gibberish? If you Christians spoke in a known tongue, would you believe in the existence of the Gift today?

shdemidemi:
Imagine 120 people storm out of a building to testify(i am using your interpretation of witness now) about a thing in diverse languages. I am sure one can assume they have been drinking from wherever they stormed out from.

One thing that is certain is that the languages they spoke existed. Does the contemporary tongue speaking christian speak any language that can be put in to writing.

My brother,
1. EDIFIETH HIMSELF is wrong/ ego trip but
2. EDIFIETH CHURCH is super and most welcome

I have debated fringe beliefs but your inconsistency in rendering this verse beats all of them combined. It is grossly and fatally contradictory

Edifying means the same thing regardless of whether the beneficiary is self or church. Demonstrate with scriptures how edifying self is wrong but edifying church is not

shdemidemi:
I Corinthians 14:2

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: (God is the only One who can make anything out of it if it were possible.) for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit (small "s" so that's man's spirit) he speaketh mysteries,"

I Corinthians 14:3,4

"But (the flip side) he that prophesieth (or speaketh forth the Word as a gifted individual) speaketh unto men to edification, (lift them up) and exhortation, and comfort."

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself(ego trip and nothing else); but he that prophesieth (and speaks forth the Word of God) edifieth the church."

They were ONLY understandable to individuals but not to all, else why would they conclude they were drunk?
Would you guess that a man praising God in your vernacular is drunk? What about if your sister suddenly erupted in Russian?

shdemidemi:
Are you saying the tongues in Acts were not clear understandable languages?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ7CJvYduqI

I won't read much into this. One of his books on potential he speaks of dying empty and this was years ago

Before we jump from Acts to 2014, is the tongue(s) of Acts the same as those of 1 Corinthians?


And to answer you, yes they are

shdemidemi:
Is the tongue in the book of Acts the same with the unknown tongue we he hear in our conventional churches today?

What do you mean by 'beyond signs'?

About poison, of course yes

shdemidemi:
I agree with your definition of 'SIGNS'.

“Signs,” as being tokens and indications of something beyond themselves.

When we get beyond signs, does it make any logical sense that we go back to pitch our tent at 'Signs'?

You have quoted that great commission by Christ to the Apostles. Fine. Do you think you poison will be harmless to you based on this true commission by Christ?

“Signs,” as being tokens and indications of something beyond themselves, of the near presence and working of God, the seals and credentials of a higher power.

Source:Cambridge Bible -Mark 6:2

Yes they are a sign because mark 16:17 says so
Mark 16:17-18 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

shdemidemi:
What is a 'sign'?

Are tongues 'SIGNS'?

Testify, give testimony

shdemidemi:
Lets take this one after the other.

What does it mean to 'witness'?

shdemidemi
1. You are wrong on Acts 1:8. The bible says they shall be witnesses but nowhere does it touch witnessing in a different tongue. You are making unwarranted conclusion from this verse. Once again what verse(s) show tongue(s) being used to propagate the gospel?

2. The reason I can't answer you is because of your restrictive & consequently dishonest question. You want me to ignore all the Spirit is saying about tongues except Acts. That is dishonesty. And I proved it. Neither can you demonstrate the value of tongues from Mark 16:17 ALONE or even exactly what tongues are

How does all these verses in Acts 2 point to your supposed purpose of preaching/propagating the gospel in different tongues? When Peter stood to speak/preach, I can guess he spoke in one language common to all these Diasporan Jews; Hebrews. The reasons are obvious. There were far too many languages represented and it would have been impossible to deliver the classic sermon in ALL the languages SIMULTANEOUSLY. So the preaching that won thousands to Christ was not in a tongue Peter never understood

3. The fact that nowhere else interpreting tongues don't diminish this wonderful gift; it is still a spiritual gift as valid as prophecy. There is somethign called Genetic Fallacy where you disregard something because of its dubious sources. For instance, Christianity may have been forced on you and you rebel against the faith on this basis. It don't make Christianity wrong, just its source. One day I was assisting a stranger jumpstart their dead battery. We connected the cables OK and started the vehicle but the other car could not start. A drunk observing us suggested that I hit the gas pedal all the way. I ignored him and shoed him off. After several attempts I decided to follow his advice. The other car started immediately. So your near obsession with the STATE of the church in Corinth should not subtract nothing from the message here as you are trying to do for reasons known best to yourself

Now, the difference between tongues and tongue is plural. You may want to push this distinction further WITH scriptures. Please refer to the verses below showing you that they mean the same thing

4. Did I read tongues edifying?
1 Corinthians 14:1-5 English Standard Version (ESV)

14 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

5. Among the signs mentioned in Mark is casting out demons. Have we outgrown demon possession so that we no longer need casting out demons SIGNS?

No sir, am not denying the PRESENT, it is you who is demanding more from the present that there really is.
The total benefits available to the IDEAL Christian presently were so few that Paul felt Christians should be pitiable IF the PRESENT (which you stash with longevity,health and wealth) was all there was to Christianity. This coming from a man who spoke in tongues than most, met Christ in person and worked miracles not to mention penned 2/3 of NT is not to be taken lightly. Sometimes the message of WOF is so strange to Pauline epistles it is almost as if the proponents are telling us that they knew better than Paul

Look, why would Christians be the MOST pitiable if there were no resurrection?

mbaemeka:
You are conflating things. I know about Eternity and we agree on that but you deny the present and that is what I want you to see. It is the same Paul that said the gospel benefits us in this world and in the world to come. He didn't say it was absurd to believe the gospel could benefit us here. Eutychus is proof that the gospel benefits us here, the man at Lystra/Lycaonia is another proof.

This is a highly intuitive argument; forgiveness is for those who reach out for it so why not health,wealth and longevity?
There are ample verses supporting INSTANT forgiveness for sins but none on health ,wealth and longevity.
Jesus forgiving sins is most certainly a bigger feat than healing and so seeing he forgives sins, health,wealth and longevity or even immortality is nothing. It just is not how he works.

The amount of comfort you wish in this world from Jesus is not guaranteed nowhere in the scriptures. The reasons are simple; we live in a fallen creation and are housed in fallen bodies. These two limit the extent to which we can enjoy the benefits of salvation. And it is the reason our bodies will be transformed and the whole creation melt away

mbaemeka:
Besides, the CAN there shows it is available in Christ but if one does not take a hold of it they will not experience it in their lives. Jesus is in the same token not dishing out any forgiveness per se. We are supposed to receive it as he has already given it. Same way with prosperity, security etc. Some people saw Jesus as only a teacher and all they got from him was his teaching messages. Some others saw Jesus as a Prophet and they benefited from his prophecies. Some others saw him as a healer and of course he healed them but there are some others who saw him as the SAVIOR of the world and to them he offered salvation.

It matters how you see Jesus. In the OT God said "I am the one who gives you the power to get wealth". So when did he relinquish that power?

Excellent submission
Christianity begins the moment faith in Christ is birthed in your spirit. This happened as Cornelius and co. sat listening to Peter.
On that verse, whatever benefits you can point to following Christians in this life, Paul felt Christians were the most pitiable of all men. How could he think this of a group that is privy to health,wealth and longevity?

Am certain you can see this point but you are avoiding it
Remember Paul is just pointing to the absurdity of faith in Christ if there were no eternity. It can't possibly be absurd for somebody enjoying all those goodies

mbaemeka:
Everything is futile without eternity but Christianity does not begin at Eternity. It begins here and now. The strongest conviction that the lame man at the beautiful gate would have had about the resurrection of Jesus (and therefore proof of the afterlife) is that the man's name still did what the actual man was doing before he checked out. So if any Sadducee had told the man that his faith in a 'dead' Jesus was hopeless, the man could have easily pointed to his formerly lame legs to say "How can a man who is dead do this for me? Does it not prove that he is still alive?"

CAN is an interesting word; it points to possibilities.
I will not say Jesus CAN forgive sins but rather Jesus forgives sins.

The error is teaching believers that Jesus is dishing out health,wealth and longevity and all it takes is your great faith to access this failure to which you will never access none of them. Faith is not measurable so I can always dismiss your supposed great faith as too little to command these into your life. Or your character can't possess them. All convenient excuses for explaining away the inconsistencies.

You study men of Faith to observe faith at work, but you can't point to nobody to observe this doctrine working out. But you are undeterred, you look to Jesus not to men! Why read books by men, read Jesus

mbaemeka:
I also believe that true peace and joy is in christ alone. But not just true peace and joy: true wealth, true prosperity, true health, true wisdom, true security etc. They can only be found in Christ. So when you tell people that they can get all but the first two from the world, you are teaching a false message because Christ also gives the rest and a plethora of scriptures say so.

And why would goDs be in trouble seeing they enjoy long life, health and wealth whenever and wherever they command it stuff ordinary mortals and baby Christians can only fantasize about?

See the point is to demonstrate how futile Christianity is in absence of eternity so much that there actually no point being in Christ

mbaemeka:
The verse supports me. If our hope in christ was ONLY in this life we would have been in trouble. But thank God our hope is NOT ONLY in this life but in this life and in the life to come.

Your purpose of tongues is a popular assumption that lacks any scriptural backing.
1. Please name any scripture that supports this bold assertion

2. Give any example of tongues utilized for this purpose

3. Explain the purpose of the gift of interpreting tongues. Who benefits since you are speaking in a strange tongue to reach those who don't speak your vernacular?

4. At what point did the tongues turn into edification of the believer praying in them?

5. Tongues are mentioned as parts of signs and wonders in Mark 16 I think. What was their purpose from Mark?

shdemidemi:
Please have it behind your mind that I have nothing against your beliefs and I am not in no way saying you must accept what I say.

1)The book of Acts is not an overlap to the letter to the corinthian church. the letter to the church in Corinth is a correctional letter to the book of Romans(doctrinal).

2)Like I said above, the book is a correctional book to a misapplication to the book of Romans. We must be very careful and not randomly pick doctrines from this book. Paul was addressing a carnal church, remember.

Romans, Ephesians, 1 thessalonians, 2 thessalonians represent our major doctrinal books. The other books like Galatians, Phillipians and Colosians were doctrinal corrections while 1st and 2nd corinthians were application correction.

3) True.


The purpose for tongues was to speak forth God's message to people who do not understand the innate language of the disciples.

Makes two of us . What question?

Bidam:
I actually do not have time for your frivolous question this morning if you cannot answer my question based on your erroneous statements.

WHich is?

Bidam:
I mean respond to my question first.

What does the health,wealth and long life brigade teach?

Bidam:
Can you quote where they said the bold or are you acting in mischief?

My brother,
Paul is raising a hypothetical question to show the Corinthians the folly of their NOT believing in resurrection.
This is Paul's argument starting with these three premises;
1. There is no resurrection
2. ALL the benefits of being a Christian are realized in this life
3. Christians do not fare ANY better than non-Christians in this life

CONCLUSION
There is no point of being a Christian.

The first premise is wrong. This is reality;
1. There is resurrection
2. NOT ALL the benefits of being a Christian are realized in this life
3. Christians do not fare ANY better than non-Christians in this life

CONCLUSION
Despite 3, there is hope for Christians; resurrection where full benefits of resurrection will be realized so you have every reason to remain in CHrist

What the wealth,health and long-life advocates are telling you is that even if there was no eternity/resurrection, there are enough reasons to be a Christian. Paul is saying the opposite. Who is right?

Bidam:
Very michievious, later you are the guys to attack WOF saying they missaply scriptures. Read the verse your quoted in context, Paul was arguing with his audience from the point of view that Christ has indeed been raise from the dead. So follow the sound advice of your buddy who said this below.

Whatever benefits we get in this present world, they don't make a Christian ANY better than the next Satanist. If it were not so, this reductio ad absurdum by Paul would not make sense

1 Cor 15:19 (KJV)
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Here is Paul comparing a Christian's present life to a non believer. Anything Christians claim, you find it in abundance among heathens be it your long-life, health, wealth....with perhaps exception of spiritual warfare

mbaemeka:
I agree. Now the question is, from that verse above, what are the benefits to be gained from this present world? I believe all of us agree that there are benefits in the life to come. But Paul also spoke about the benefits in this present world. That's what I am referring to.

I have never gotten over Asuza 1990 and him preaching on Purpose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iJyq-N_HZA