New Testament Corrupted?

It has been claimed by many people that the New Testament has been corrupted. The opponents of the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament as it currently stands cite that the many translations and versions as the grounds for the belief of the corruption of the New Testament. These same people also charge that the original New Testament is lost. Therefore, the modern translations of the New Testament can not be exact copies of the original New Testament, since the original in their minds do not exist. So these people believe that the modern New Testament versions and translations are nothing more than further corruptions of a fraudulent text.
As proof of such corruption, one of the many examples they present is the fact that some modern English translations and versions have removed the word “begotten” from John 3:16. Opponents of the New Testament point to this removal as proof that the word “begotten” was previously added and was now correctly removed. This “proof” is an mistaken understanding of the intent of the translators of the New Testament and why they deemed it necessary to remove the word “begotten” from John 3:16. The reason why some modern translators removed the word “begotten” from John 3:16 was not because it did not previously exist and was added, it was removed because the translators assumed that the reader of the scripture would assume that if God had a son, he would have to be of natural birth in order for him to exist in the natural world, which what the word “begotten” means. So this removal did not change the concept of God having a Son, naturally born, as many of the opponents of the New Testament would have people to believe.

It is true that the original New Testament texts were lost to decay, but what many opponents of the New Testament fail to recognize that many copies of the original New Testament were made before the originals were lost, about 24 thousand copies or more to be exact and more are being found every few years. No other religious or classical writings even come close to the number of copies made of its texts in comparison to the number of copies made of original New Testament texts. Secondly, the process by which the copies were made: If an error was found during the copying process, the proposed copy was destroyed. Another copy was made to replace the copy that was destroyed. This process was preserving the continuity and consistency of the original New Testament documents over time. This process was adopted from the Jewish community, remember the first Christians were originally Jews, so it not surprising that Jewish Christians kept the document preservation traditions of their Jewish only neighbors when making copies of their documents.  Thirdly, many of the written works of the 2nd century church fathers were also preserved in very much the same manner. From these church fathers are about 800 or more direct quotes from the original Apostles of Jesus, the Christ. Through these quotes alone can the New Testament be completely reassembled, and that without the use of the 24 thousand plus copies of the New Testament. A theologian named, Sir David Dalrymple some time ago took up the challenge of the reassembly of the New Testament and successfully did exactly that. He reassembled the New Testament as we have it today without deviations or alteration. He proved the charge of corruption of the New Testament false. He also proved that the New Testament remained consistently unchanged, even after the original New Testament was lost to decay.

Here are some statements by other theologians about the corruption of the New Testament:
From Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (Mohammed’s cousin and one of his companions) ... Islam's premiere commentator:
(a) “They corrupt the word” means “they alter or change its meaning”,yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.”From: Kitaab (the book of) Al-Tawheed, Baab (chapter) Qawlu AllahTa'ala, Bal Huwa Qur'aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth
(b) “The word “Tahrif” [corruption] signifies to change a thing from its original nature; and there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what proceeds from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meanings of the word of God.'' From: Imam Muhammad Isma'il al-Bukhari in Dictionary of Islam, T.P.Hughes, Kazi Publications, Inc, 3023-27 West BelmontAvenue, Chicago Il. 60618, 1994, p.62Al-Razi (Egyptian, 7thc.)

One of the most famous Muslim scholars, called "the Eman of Muslim Emams"”How could there be any alteration in the Book whose words' sharpness has reached a great level of circulation in the East and in the West? ... For no change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds."From: p.327 of his Third Volume Ali Tabari (Arabian, 7thc.)

Tabari wrote a semi-official defence of Islam against the Jews and Christians while he was at Baghdad during the reign of the Abbasid Caliph Mutawakkil (AD 847-861). At no time did he charge them with corrupting their Scriptures. Instead he says concerning the first religious book in history: ”... the first one which came into existence, is the Torah, which is in the hands of the People of the Book.” He goes on to say, “As to the Gospel which is in the hands of the Christians, the greater part of it is the history of the Christ, His birth and His life.” From: Tabari, The Book of Religion and Empire, p.51He thus openly acknowledged that the authentic Torah and Gospel remained in the hands of the Jews and the Christians, and when speaking of them, he outlined the contents of the Old and New Testaments. His only charge against the Jews and Christians was that they did not always understand or accept the true meaning of their teachings, and he often quoted the Old and New Testaments to make his point.
Fakhruddin Razi (Persian, 1149-1209) -- Sunni theologian Razi ... on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed:"The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."

Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan (Indian, 1817-1898) Prominent Muslim modernist whose influence on Islamic thought and policy shaped/defined Muslim responses to modernism in the latter half of the 19thc ”As far as the text of the Bible is concerned, it has not been altered. No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.”From: M.H.Ananikian, “The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan”, The Moslem World 14 (1934) p.61

Muhammad â€کAbduh (Egyptian, 1849-1905) Reformer and pioneer of Islamic modernism and nationalism”... the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians every where to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious.”From: Jacques Jomier, “Jesus, The Life of the Messiah”, C.L.S., Madras, 1974, p.216

Ibn Muniyah”Ibn Mazar and Ibn Hatim state, in the commentary known as the Tafsir Durr-I-Mansur, that they have it on the authority of Ibn Muniyah, that the Taurat (i.e. the books of Moses), and the Injil (i.e. the Gospels), are in the same state of purity in which they were sent down from heaven, and that no alterations had been made in them, but that the Jews were wont to deceive the people by unsound arguments, and by wresting the sense of Scripture ... Shah Waliyu ‘Illah (in his commentary, the Fauzul â€کl-Kabir), and also Ibn ‘Abbas, support the same view.” From: T.P.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, Kazi Publications, Inc, 3023-27 West Belmont Avenue, Chicago Il. 60618, 1994, p.62

Dr. Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub (Lebanese, 1938-present) Professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religion at Temple Univ. (USA)(a) “Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Qur'an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by altering words from their right position.”From: “Uzayr in the Qur'an and Muslim Tradition” in “Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions”,ed.

W.M.Brenner and S.D.Ricks, The University of Denver, 1986, p.5 (b) “... both the Hebrew Bible and the N.T. took their final form long before the rise of Islam. The Qur'an speaks of both the Torah and the Gospel as in them is guidance and light. It calls on the two faith-communities to judge by what God had revealed in their Scriptures. It also speaks that both Jews and Christians altered words from their right places and had forgotten some of what God had revealed for them. This does not mean distorting, adding, and deleting of the Scriptures. Therefore, Qur'anic references to tahrif, or alteration, are more to interpretation rather than changing the texts.”

From: May 15, 2008 e-mail to author. The Egyptian scholar, Muhammad 'Abduh, acknowledges that the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all. “It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious.”In regard to the four Gospel accounts of the New Testament, he adds:"We believe that these Gospel accounts are the true Gospel."

Mawlawi Muhammad Sa'id, a former inspector of schools in Punjab, writes: ”... as God says in the beginning of the Qur'an: “And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.” (2:4, 5) ”Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But as far as corruption is concerned, not even one among all the verses of the Qur'an mentions that the Injil or the Tawrat is corrupted. In the concerned passages it is written that the Jews - yes the Jews, not the Christians - alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted. For it does not necessarily follow that these Scriptures are corrupt because of the wrong opinion of some uninformed persons.”

Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi has written: ”The ordinary Muslim people acknowledge that the Injil is the Word of God. Yet they also believe through hearsay (taqlidi 'aqida) that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community in this world whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands, and then, after restlessly patching it with sackcloth, they must throw dust in the eyes of the people? True, some religious communities change the meaning (tahrif-i ma'nawi) of their Scriptures. To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God. It is to pour ridicule not only upon the Qur'an but upon all the Books. Abrogation always arises because of error. Laws of earthly kingdoms are abrogated because experience has proved that they are harmful. But God makes no mistake, nor does He lack experience.”

Writes Mawlawi Chirag ud-Din: "The Qur'an commands us to believe and to honour the previous Scriptures and Apostles. According to Surah (Nisa): “O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime.” (4:136) ”When, therefore, it is commanded to believe in these Holy Scriptures, why consider the study of these Scriptures reprehensible? For when the order to believe the Qur'an and the Holy Scriptures is one and the same, how can one conclude that reading the Qur'an is a meritorious act, but that reading the Holy Scriptures is a punishable offence? ”

More recently, the Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub, while discussing various Muslim commentaries on the Quranic claim that Jews call Ezra "the son of God", of tahrif which concurs with the opinion of Abduh and others noted above: ”Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Qur'an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by "altering words from their right position" (4:26; 5:13, 41; see also 2:75). However, this refers more to interpretation than to actual addition or deletion of words from the sacred books.”

Fr. Jacques Jomier graphically portrays the issue which provoked the thoughts of Mahmoud Ayoub and Adil Ozdemir: ”The problem of the authenticity of our scriptures is a difficult one, but it is one of the most important points on which light needs to be shed. No serious discussion with Muslims is possible as long as we do not agree on the authenticity of the text of the Bible and the Gospels.
At a meeting between Muslims and Christians in Tripoli, Libya, in 1976, Fr. Landry of the White Fathers solemnly made two requests in the course of a masterly conference. First of all, in the name of Christians, he asked forgiveness for all our unjust treatment of Muslims in the past; he then asked firmly for Muslims to take the text of our scriptures seriously. The first request prompted indescribable emotion and much embracing; the second met with total indifference and fell on deaf ears”

Prof. Abdullah Saeed, PhDA significant point of tension between today’s Muslims and the ‘People of the Book’ (Jews and Christians) is the common Muslim belief that the Jewish and Christian scriptures that exist today are corrupted and cannot be relied upon in any matters of faith, religion or law. Although this is a popular view, most classical scholars of the Qur’an were far more cautious in their understanding of Qur’anic texts on this issue. This article explores the Qur’an’s references to distortion of scriptural meaning and text, and the views of scholars, particularly Tabari, Qurtubi, Razi, Ibn Taymiyya and Qutb. Qur’anic words such as tahrif are popularly accepted today as referring to deliberate distortion of scripture; however, classical scholars have interpreted the Qur’an’s references in a number of different ways. Almost all suggested that distortion occurred mainly through interpretation and not in the text itself. Although the Qur’an refers to tahrif (distortion), it also exhibits the utmost respect for previous scriptures. Early Muslims adopted a narrow view of scripture, partly because of the nature of the Qur’an, and also in response to the more established religions of Judaism and Christianity, to assert the ‘purity’ of the Qur’an and Islam. Saeed notes that the Jewish and Christian scriptures that exist today are, according to most scholars, largely unchanged since the time of Muhammad and should be respected now as they were then. From: his article "The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures", in the 2002 Publication: The Muslim World. Vol. 92http://www.abdullahsaeed.org/article/charge-distortion-jewish-and-christian-scriptures

Source for all quotes: www.netmuslims.com, posted by the Asif on the thread titled Muslim scholars say "no tanrif" of the Bible.

Now many of these quotes are from Muslim scholars who do not agree with the popular idea that Christians and Jews altered the Law and the Gospel. But what was revealed here today is such corruption of the New Testament did not exist in the early church. From which all modern translations that are worth their salt is taken from. In fact some of these notable Muslim scholars state that it was impossible to do because if some did attempt to change the Gospel the error would have been discovered and corrections would have been made. Why? Because of the widespread use and copying of the original New Testament corruption of the New Testament was impossible.

Get any religious book you want!
http://gan.doubleclick.net/gan_click?lid=41000000024409189&pubid=21000000000552518

Don't Be Late For the Wedding Party!

In Mathew 22, we have a parable of a king that made a marraige for his son. He sent servants to everyone he thought worthy to invite. They disreguarded the invite and mistreated the servants, some of which they slew. This made the king angry and he sent his armies and burnt up their villiages. He then commanded other servants to go out and invite anyone to the wedding party. So the wedding party was full of guests. The King looked out among the crowd and saw a person who did not have a wedding garment on. He commanded the servants to bind that person and cast him out of the wedding party.

I looked at this and realized that the king was God. Who had sent servants to preach the word of the comming messiah, But the people that heard killed and disreguarded them. God therefore allowed Armies to take thier villages and into Captivity. After the time of their Captivity was fulfilled He sent other servants but this time he invited anyone to the wedding party. I had to stop there. The preaching of the Gospel is the invite to the wedding party. You see in American traditions the wedding Party happens after the wedding, but in Biblical times the wedding party preceeded the wedding itself. Then the message rang clear. People are missing the wedding party! Because saints are not inviting people to be saved. People are missing the wedding party, beacuse they are not dressed in the wedding garment.

Some will show up at the wedding party without their wedding garment on. These are folks that think that because they attended church, or was a good moral person that they will partake of the wedding party. Some will come with their own moral beliefs about God that God did not declare of himself through his servants. These people don't have their wedding garment on.

What is the wedding garment: It is listed in Ephesians Chapter 6. We Call it the armor of God. What the sad thing is that some believers have taken their helmet off, they believe God can save, but not them. Some have taken off the loins of truth, the are not honest but believe that god can save them, Some have put down the shield of faith, they just do not believe that God can do nothing for them, except being saved. The list goes on.

Are you one of these types of believers? Don't miss the wedding party because you don't have your wedding garment on.

The Call of Discipleship

There is a time where a person who is a believer in Christ endeavors to improve his walk with the Lord. That yearning to be a better Christian than he once was is God bred. Some believers mistake that yearning as a call to the ministry. What that yearning is the call to discipleship. There is a difference between being a believer and being a disciple. A believer is someone who has come into the knowledge of the saving power of Christ. He is a witness of the transformation from within to those who may have not yet accepted the Lord as their personal savior. On the other hand a disciple is a believer that has taken the next step in his or her spiritual growth. That person has determined to commit his or her way of living to a lifestyle that Christ taught in the Gospel and what His apostles taught in their actions and letters to church. Too many believers are running with visions of granduer in the ministry and failing woefully. Causing more damage than what the enemies of the cross could hope for. Before any believer can venture out into a designated ministry of the church, that person must realize that he must become a student and ardent follower of Christ. He must become an disciple. Let us look at what are the requirements of being a disciple in Christ.

The prequisites of discipleship:
1) A person must have experienced the saving power of Christ and be saved.
2) A person must have a desire to deepen his life walk with the Lord Christ.
3) A person must surrender his bond with earthly attachements and sumbit himself to the obedience of the Law of Christ.

The price of discipleship:
1) A disciple must pick up his "cross" and follow Jesus. The cross symbolizing the burden of his life and salvation of his soul.
2) A disciple is committed to the work of the Lord. 
3) A disciple is willing to lose all to gain Christ. Jesus advises that if a individual chooses to become his disciple, that person needs to consider the price.

The young rich ruler that came to Jesus seeking how he may obtain eternal life. Jesus instructed him to keep the comandments to which the young rich ruler replied that he has kept the commandments from his youth. Jesus then responded if he was perfect sell what you had and follow Him. The young rich ruler went away sorrowful because he had obtained great possessions. The young rich ruler could not make the switch. He was tied down to too many riches. This was a concern to the disciples that followed Jesus in so much that Peter inquired that the have made the switch. They have left all and came to follow him. Jesus then lays out what is on the other side of the switch. Houses, land, family, etc. a hundered fold times over in this life and in the life to come. However he also said that this will come with a bit of persecution. So if a person is willing to pay the price, lose all to gain Christ he will gain all again.

So How does one become a Disciple? (do not skip the steps)
1) Get saved, born again, accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior.
2) Commit yourself to the work of the Lord in a church or ministry in study and participation.
3) Each candidate for discipleship after being observed and showing the commitment to the teachings of Christ through the ministry or the church must be water baptised.

 Once a believer grows into discipleship, the door to ministry opens wide and according to your gifts room will be made for you. There is no short cuts,  each of the above steps must be observed.  There are many followers of Christ, but not many disciples for many are called but few are chosen. Yet if you have been in church for awhile and yearn to do more for God through Christ, become a disciple.

The Curse of Canaan

It has been taught that the reason that black people are cursed because of their ancestral father Canaan. However, upon further review and study, I had found that assumption is not true. However just to state a thing as not true does not make it not true. Edvidence in the bible points to misinterpretation of the issue.

Why do people believe that black people are cursed in the first place? People look around and see the plight of black people in america and determine that no matter how you try to uplift a race of people they will remain where they are socialeconmically. When people ask certain religious leaders about why this is they point to the story of the curse Noah placed upon Cannaan. They cite that canaan is the father of all cursed people and black people decended from Canaan. What is worse is that they cite the bible for validation of this belief. When the bible does not state the decendancy of the black race came from Canaan. In fact the Bible states that Ham is the father of all Africans. Yes Canaan was one of the sons of Ham, but Canaan did not settle in Africa. Canaan removed himself from his fathers house and dominion and started a separate lineage in what was called Canaan land. This is the same land that God promised to Israel and called it the Promise Land. Israel conquested the Land and subjugated its inhabitants.

Now Ham had other sons: Egypt, Cush, ect. All remained on the contenent we know as Africa. None of Ham's other sons were cursed by Noah, only Canaan. Now someone must of thought that since Canaan was cursed all of Ham's sons were cursed. Impossible, the other sons were born after the cursed was placed on Canaan. If Noah wanted to curse Ham he would have done so directly. Noah did not curse Ham. Even Ham took away Canaan's birthright for the offense he pepurtrated upon his grandfather. How do I know this? Well when genealogies are wrote in the Bible the oldest son always takes the first position in the listing. When one examines the lineage of Ham, they find that Canaan, Hams oldest son is not given the first position in the linage. Canaan is placed in the last place. This rendering of the lineage of Ham is signifcant, If we examine the other lineages associated with the text we find that the oldest son is named first and the other children may not be mentioned at all. It is in a few cases that the other sons are mentioned,and that they are mentioned in the order of their birth. We find that it is the first son, the oldest son holds the first listing positiion in the fathers lineages. We findng that Canaan was listed last only signifies the Ham was not pleased with Canaan's action against his grandfather. He took from him the valuable and cherished birthright and gave it to the next born son.

What did Canaan do? This is up to speculation. Many have come up with many things but can not support it because the Bible does not give us the details that would support their conjecture on what did Canaan do?. Let us think what did actually happen, base on what the bible does tell us. In our examination we need to include the events that happen prior to the cursing of Canaan and the events after. Event number 1: Noah has triplets Shem, Ham and Japeth. Event number two: God calls Noah to build an ark and commands him to warn about the impending flood. Event number 3: God calls all the animals of the earth and eight souls that makes up Noahs family to the ark. Event Number 4: The earth is flooded, during this time Ham has a son and names him Canaan Event Number 5: After many days the flood waters subsided and the Ark rests on a mountain side. All leave the ark. Event number 6: Noah performs the first sacrificail offerring after the flood and God makes convenant with mankind through Noah. Event number 7: Noah plants a new vineyard and drinks of the fruits of his labor. He gets drunk. Event number 8: Canaan finds Noah in his drunken state and transports him to his tent. Canaan strips his grandfather of everything he has, his clothes, his tools his seeds and leaves him naked in the tent. Event number 9: Ham comes looking for Canaan and thinks he is in the tent with his grandfather and he goes to inspect only to find his father naked on the floor of the tent. Event number 10: Ham ashamed of looking upon his fathers naked body tells his other two brothers and they took a blanket into the tent walking backwards and covered the nakeness of the thier fathers body. Event number 11: When Noah came to himself, he looked around and knew that his youngest Son, Canaan had done to him and specifically Cursed Canaan. Event number 12: Ham was notified that Canaan had done this deed to his grandfather He took away his birthright. Event number 13: Canaan took one of his sisters or sisters in Law for a wife and migrated to what was to become the Land of Canaan. This is the only logical and biblical explaination of what happed and what Canaan do?

The curse of Canaan is not exclusive to the black race but any child of any age or race that dishonors. their father. Many children are living in the curse of Canaan, because they have dishonored the father of their youth. They have taken, stolen and moved away from their father and are under the dellusion that they will be blessed in their endeavours. The bible says and comands that all children must honor their father and mother that long life would be awarded to them. How can you honor God the father, who is invisible and you don't see and not honor the father who you do see.

I wrote this with no scripture refferences because I desire that you search out the story line mentioned in this blog for yourself and do not take my word for it. However, for those who are lost to where to look I encourage you to read Genesis chapters 4-10, Mathew 24, and the letters of Peter. You will find references to the blog you just read.

Become a better Bible teacher!

http://sanchez856.golden.hop.c lickbank.net/?tid=BQYX5BZ8

Why Do We Need To Go To Church?

I was teaching a Sunday school class of children one day and very young teenage girl asked this question: Why do I need to come to church? My response to her was that she may learn what the call of God on her life is. I turned to the rest of the class and told them that because of Jesus every child has a call of God on all their lives. Some will learn what that call is, some don't learn what that call of God on their lives is. The scripture I used was the same one Peter used when God poured out his Spirit upon all flesh on the day of Pentecost. I also quoted the prophet Joel. Then I further explained that John the Baptist proclaimed about the coming messiah in his messages as he who will baptize with fire. That fire that John, the Baptist spoke of, is the Holy Spirit, that the messiah Jesus, the Christ, received at his water baptism. This is the same Holy Spirit that the Apostles were the first to receive that initial baptism of the Holy Spirit through Jesus, the Christ, empowering them to preach the Gospel throughout the world. Then, I said to the entire youth class, "The devil wants you to be distracted and inattentive, this way you will never find out what God in Christ called you to be. This is why the Church exists, to promote the knowledge of God through Christ. This is why every person needs to come to church."

 The problem is people think that Church is just a social activity which really does not have a role in the real world, except that of taking peoples money and giving it all to the Pastor. It is sad that this view has been espoused promoted by people who are not real servants of the Lord but scam artist looking to exploit the masses using Christ and a Church as their cloak.

 The church's value is in the building of individual lives and families in the will and order of God according to the Gospel of Christ.

 The church's importance in society is that it provides service to the hopeless, comfort to the discouraged and provision, as it is able to do it, to those who are needy.

 The church's purpose is to maintain the testimony of the saving power of Christ as a light to a dark and lost society, in the hope that its witness concerning Christ will save some.

 The church's strength does not only come from God but also from its members who have identified themselves apart of the local church body.

 People will never know this, if they don't come to church and learn what their call in God's work is. The Bible states: "My People perish for the lack of knowledge" This is Satan's goal: To get people to not hear the Gospel; To discourage them from coming to church and get them spiritually out on a island all by themselves so that he may steal from them what God has provided for them in Christ, which includes the call of God on the life of the believer and the reward for obedience to the call of God by the believer.

 When God called Abram, he went in obedience to Gods directive even though he did not know where he was going, for he knew that if God promised him something it was as sure as money in the bank that it will come to pass. He took God's promise and believed it and consequently obeyed it. Today people can not take the promise of God and walk by faith to receive the rewards of obedience to it. Why? The reason is that people want the reward first then suggest that they will obey God thereafter. God knows that people will not obey HIM. So the reward of the promises of God is of faith first, obedience second. Again people will not know this if they do not come to church and learn what the call of God on their lives is.

So there is a blessing awaiting those who come to church, not just to fill a pew. A blessing for those who come to church to find what Christ wants them to do for his glory.  That is why we all need to go to church.   Without that knowledge, life can become meaningless and purposeless.

So come to church, find your purpose in God, in Christ for the glory of God.   See what blessings God will perform in your life.

Peter Vs. Paul: Did Paul Change the Gospel Message?

I. The Charge against Paul, the Apostle

One of the many objections to modern day Christianity, none has excited the masses as much as the idea that the Apostle Paul changed the Gospel message. For this reason,  many accuse modern Christianity of being the church of Paul than the Church of Christ and his original Apostles. Seeing that it was Peter that was to originally head the Church (Matthew 16:13-20; John 21:16+17), appointed by Jesus himself, they supposed that Paul was clever and smart man (not saying that he wasn't a smart man) who knew he could not stop the movement which he persecuted, at that time called "the way" decided to later join it. After awhile he took the movement away from the original Apostles and firmly planted it in the Gentile world. They who make such an accusation of the Apostle Paul neglect the fact that the Apostle Paul was also made an apostle by Christ himself after a confrontation between Saul (now known as Paul, the Apostle) of Tarsus and Jesus, the Christ on the road to Damascus.(Acts 9:1-16, 22:1-15). What gets lost in the debate is also the fact that Peter was to be the first preacher and spokesman of the Church, which was a position appointed by Jesus himself before his ascension, while the Apostle Paul was to be the great missionary Apostle to the Gentiles or the nations,(Galatians 2:1-10  ) Peter's missionary ministry was to be toward the Jews. Peter's ministry to the non Jewish nations or the Gentiles occurred after Paul's death. So Peter's initially ministry was to the Jews in and about Jerusalem. Let see how that all came about.

II. The Initial History of the Gospel Message

In the early days of the Church, the Christian community in Jerusalem were primarily made up of Jews that had converted to "the way" and felt that it was to the Jewish population that the Gospel of Christ must be preached to. Not one of them conceived of the notion to share the Gospel with a Gentile, forgetting the great commission that Christ gave them to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations. One day all that changed, for Peter was instructed by the Spirit of God to not discriminate when sharing the Gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 10). During sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles in Ceasarea, Peter came to the revelation that ".... Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34+35) Peter was called to the church council in Jerusalem to explain his actions (Acts 11:1-18) for He being a Jew went in among the ceremonial unclean Gentiles and preached to them the Gospel. When Peter stood in front of the Jewish church council, he rehearsed to all how God allowed him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles in Ceasarea. After hearing his explanation all the Jewish Christian believers of the church council said, " Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) This shows that the Jewish Christians thought the Gospel was to be shared with only the Jews that did not yet believe. Right after that, the Gospel spread to Cyprus and the first Christian community was formed in Antioch when Greek and Jewish believers in the Gospel came to Israel from Cyprus to learn more of "the way" which was the name of the movement before the name Christian was assigned to it. To whom the Church council in Jerusalem sent Jewish Christian teachers of "the Way" to ground them in the faith, Barnabas was one of those teachers that traveled to Antioch from Jerusalem to carry out this assignment. It was there people started to call them Christians, (Acts 11:26) from that point on, in order to differentiate themselves from the Jews who did not convert and the Pagans who still did not believe in "the way" . Peter started preaching to the Gentiles, under the direction of God before Paul began to preach to them.

Another reason that we went through these early Church events is to point out the fact that if the Apostle Paul changed the Gospel message and founded the modern Church, where was he when all this foundational stuff was happening not by Paul's direction but rather by the direction of God? The Apostle Paul was being discipled in Damascus (Acts 9:17-20), and preached the Gospel to the Jews during his discipleship in Damascus. When he heard of the Christians gathering in Antioch, he left Damascus and went there. Barnabas met Paul in Antioch, after which the Holy Spirit set them apart for the preaching of the Gospel outside of Israel. (Acts 13:1-3) The question here is, if Paul changed the Gospel Message, why did the Holy Spirit send him and Barnabas out to preach it without correcting his theology? It is because it was not changed as we will see later in this article.

Now after Peter was being hunted down to be martyred by unbelieving men (Acts 12:1-19) like the Apostle James the son of Alpheaus, Paul and Barnabas took up the call to continue the work of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:1-3) Their directives was to approach the Jews first with the message, if rejected by the Jews, preach then to anyone else willing to hear. This is clearly displayed in the book of Acts, where the first place they entered was a Jewish place of worship, when the Jews rejected the Gospel message that they presented, both Barnabas and Paul began preaching to the Gentiles.

The Church grew under the Apostle Paul's ministry, now his first companion Barnabas is important to look at here, because this was the same man who was sent of the Apostles of Jerusalem to ground the young Gentile and Jewish church at Antioch. Barnabas was a teacher, Paul was a preacher, by these two men God founded Churches throughout Asia, Macedonia and Greece. What is so important about Barnabas? Teachers of the faith have a strong challenge and a charge. That is. they are to watch over what is preached and correct any errors or deviation from what supposed to be preached. Such was the role of Barnabas in the ministry with the Apostle Paul. Barnabas was a teacher of "the way", the teacher of the Christian life. So any deviation from what Paul was discipled to preach about Jesus, would have been detected by Barnabas. Barnabas would have departed from Paul and reported to the Church in Jerusalem that the Apostle had gone astray from the fundamental preaching of the Gospel of Christ. Paul would have been ostracized and excommunicated from the fellowship of the Apostleship of the Church. We know that Paul did not go astray from the fundamental elements of the Gospel of Christ, because when Barnabas did disagreed sharply with Paul it was not about his doctrine, or preaching. It was because Barnabas wanted to take again with them John Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark and Paul did not want to take him, because Mark deserted them on their first missionary trip. Not because of any deviation to the Gospel message.

Now while Paul and Barnabas was out and about preaching the Gospel, certain Jewish believers in Christ which viewed Christianity as an extension of Judaism's customs and traditions came from Jerusalem teaching the people in Antioch that they had to be circumcised according to the Law of Moses in order to be saved. This caused a great rift in the church, so much so that the Apostles in Jerusalem, now headed by James, the Lord's brother had to call a together the Church council to determine whether or not to require the Gentle believers in Christ to keep the Law of Moses. (Acts 15) To this Peter stands up and reminds the council how God allowed him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles to be accepted by them by faith only. The same way they, as all Jews was offered salvation in Christ without any requirement to observe any Law of Moses. What a surprise! It is Peter, a Jewish believer and an Apostle of Jesus that advises the Church council in Jerusalem to not burden the Gentile believers with keeping the Law of Moses, not Paul the Apostle. The reason? Because they came to the understanding that since they and their forefathers could not observe the Law of Moses, how could they expect the Gentiles to live according to the Law of Moses?  Paul and Barnabas, who were also attending the council meeting, then gave a full report of their ministry abroad among the Gentiles and how God worked mighty through them to the saving of many souls. Hearing this argument presented by Peter and the Missionary report of Paul and Barnabas, James ruled that a few simple rules needed to be observed so that the Gentile believers would not be and offense to the Jewish believers in Christ, furthermore James declared that those persons who informed them that they had to keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved did not get that instruction or order from the Apostles of Christ. So the Gentiles believers was not required to keep the Law of Moses. Thereby confirming the Apostle Paul's Ministry to the Gentiles and to the Jews of those other nations. This again indicates that the Apostle Paul did not deviate from the elements of the Gospel, that he was discipled to preach. For if he did, Barnabas, Peter and the rest of the Apostles would have corrected Paul. No such correction of Paul's Gospel presentation is noted in the Book of acts by the Church council in Jerusalem

III. The Gospel presentation of Peter Vs. the Gospel presentation of Paul
.
This now brings us to the issue of what was the original Gospel message and what was the Gospel message that the Apostle Paul preached. Is there any difference? If so why, and was it necessary? Does it prove the argument that Paul changed the Gospel message? In order to determine the answers to these questions we need to see the elements of the preaching of Peter in comparison with that of the Preaching of Paul. The way we must investigate this issue is comparing the Gospel elements in Peter's Preaching to the Gospel elements in Paul's preaching.

Peter's elements of the Gospel are as follows:

1) That Jesus is Lord [God] and Messiah [Christ] -Acts 2:36
2) That Jesus is God's appointed servant which was slain- Acts 3:22+23
3) That Jesus is God's resurrected Son- Acts 3:26
4) That Jesus is God's chosen Savior [Christ, Messiah]of Mankind- Acts 4:12

These listed above were the elements that made up Peter's Gospel message. So what is Paul's elements of the Gospel?

Paul's elements of the Gospel are as follows:

1) That Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God- Acts 9:20, 13:33
2) That Jesus is the promised Messiah [Christ]- Acts 13:33
3) That Jesus is the slain Messiah [Christ]-Acts 13:27-29
4) That Jesus is the resurrected Messiah [Christ]- Acts 13:30+31

These listed above were the elements that made up Paul's Gospel message. We must note here that the Apostle Paul spend some time being discipled by the believers in Damascus before he began to make his Gospel presentation after he converted to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The question is, is the same Gospel as the one Peter preached? When we closely compare the Gospel presentations of Peter and Paul, we find the following points between the respective elements of their Gospel messages to be similar.

1) The Divinity of Jesus

a)Peter states that Jesus' status is elevated to that of "Lord" in Acts 2:36. The Greek word that is translated to this English word "Lord", I have discovered that it also means "Supreme over all" and "God". Peter therefore testifies therefore that God elevated Jesus to divine status equal to His own divine status.

b)Paul states that Jesus' status is elevated to that of being "the Son of God" by reason of Jesus' relationship to God the Creator. God is the Father of Jesus, naturally born to Him and thereby Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. God the creator made Jesus divine, through the process of natural child birth He made him God and man -Acts 9:20, 13:33

2) The Messiah ship of Jesus

a)Peter states that Jesus was Christ. Christ is the English translation of the Greek word which is also a translation of the Hebrew word that is again translated into the English word Messiah. In other words, Christ and Messiah are terms that refer to the same thing. They are exchangeable in English. It is notable that Peter only uses the word "Christ" when speaking in reference to Jesus when he needs to communicate to an audience that knows Greek and or Hebrew.- Acts 2:36, 4:12

b)Paul also states that Jesus was Christ [Messiah] that was prophesied about by the Holy Prophets in his Gospel message.-Acts 13:23

3) The Death of Jesus, the Messiah [Christ]

a)Peter states that Jesus, the chosen Messiah [Christ] was slain -Acts 3:22+23

b)Paul also states that Jesus, the Messiah was slain-Acts 13:27-29

4) The Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah [Christ], God's Son

a)Peter states that Jesus, God's son and appointed Messiah was resurrected from the dead by God the
Creator.- Acts 3:32

b)Paul also states that Jesus was raised up from the dead by God the Creator- Acts 13:30+31

As we can see, Peter and Paul used the same four elements in their Gospel presentations: 1)The Divinity of Jesus, 2)The Messiah ship of Jesus, 3) The death of Jesus, the Messiah and 4) The Resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah. Seeing that they used the same elements in their Gospel presentations, this proves again that the Apostle Paul did not change the Gospel Message in any elementary way. However, there is a noticeable difference between their Gospel presentations. The difference is seen in the perspectives they each preached from as well as the audience they preached to.

IV. The Differences Between the Gospel Presentations

When Peter preached the Gospel, he preached it from the perspective of being an eye witness. When Paul preached the Gospel, he preached it from the perspective of being a second hand witness. The difference between that being a first hand witness and a second hand witness is the quality and the credibility of sources. Peter quality of sources were the other Apostles who walked with Jesus, heard Jesus teach, seen Jesus suffer and seen Jesus be crucified. He and the Apostles also seen Jesus alive after his passion and fellowshiped with Jesus for 40 days (Acts 1, John 21). So Peter's sources for his Gospel presentation are of the highest quality and authenticity. Now this is important to understand, the second hand witness presentation of Paul rests upon the quality and authenticity of his sources. If there is a degree of a lesser quality of credibility, then Paul's Gospel presentation is of lesser credibility than that of Peters. So what are the Apostle Paul's sources for his Gospel presentations? They are the same Apostles of Christ and the disciples who heard Jesus speak, seen Jesus suffer and die on the cross and seen him be raised from the dead. Paul's Gospel presentation was not questioned by the Apostles of Christ when He and Barnabas made their missionary report to them. (Acts 15) After Peter presented the argument to not burden the Gentile believers in Christ with the keeping of the Law of Moses, which no one Jew of them could keep. The salvation of God was presented to the Jews not on the basis of keeping the Law of Moses' administration, but rather it was offered to them on the basis of faith on the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah [Christ]. It appeared to them that God made the same offer to the Gentiles who would choose to believe in Jesus, the Christ and to make them observe the law that no one could keep except for Jesus was not just or fair or right. This was also the offer of salvation in Paul's presentation of the Gospel to the Gentiles and Jews outside of Israel. So we see here that the quality and credibility of Paul's presentation of the Gospel is equal of that of Peter's for they both testified from the same sources. Even though Paul is preaching from the perspective of a second hand witness, his Gospel presentation is equal to Peter's Gospel presentation.

Another difference between the Gospel presentations of Peter and Paul is that Peter's presentations were geared toward the Jewish audience until he was directed to make a presentation to the Gentiles in Ceasarea. Paul's Gospel presentations took on the added elements of preaching against idolatry and Paganism, elements that Peter never had the opportunity to develop in his early  Gospel presentation. Peter's missionary work did not start until Paul met his end. Peter's work was more about the encouragement of the believers that Paul and Barnabas was used of God to reach with the Gospel presentation. This however. does not indicate a change in the Gospel message by Paul, for Peter did not come behind Paul to change what he had preached to them for them to believe for their salvation. Peter rather came behind Paul to confirm what he taught in those fledgling churches. When Peter preached his Gospel message, he emphasized the knowledge of the ministry of God through Christ to the Jews and accused the Jews of slaying Christ. Paul used the knowledge of his audience conscience of righteousness, their spiritual awareness and revelation of the mystery of the Gospel when preaching his Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles outside of Israel.

V. The Verdict

So the question is, was this enough of a change to make Paul guilty of changing the Gospel message? The answer is no. Why? Because when Peter had to make a Gospel presentation to the Gentiles in Ceasarea under the direction of God, he adjusted his message and did not accuse the Gentiles of slaying Jesus. He left that accusation squarely up his Jewish brethren that did not believe in Christ. He rather told the Gentiles what the Jews did to Jesus, the Messiah. They heard, and believed and thereby received Christ. Paul preached and those who heard him also believed the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. Since then the Gospel message has been presented in various ways but always remaining true to the fundamental elements of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ which always contains the four elements first proclaimed by Apostles Peter and Paul. To them and the rest of the Apostles the Church of Christ owes its growth and founding beliefs that has lasted for over 2000 years without change.

Don't Abort the Process!

Every thing that God does, he does it through a process.
So whatever the process that God has you going through don't abort the process just because you don't see an immediate result.

The problem with our culture is that when we perceive that some thing or some one is no good to us or for us we throw those things and yes even people away. However, God specializes in renewing and reviving things and people.

People are unique because they have their own will, so it is up to them to submit to the process that God has designed for them to go through.

As the saying goes: If God never intended for you to obtain your goals then He would not have supplied the test.

For example; Ever prayed for more patience? What did you receive instead of patience being infused into your personna? You recieved tests, one after another that excercised your patience.

If you believe that God wanted you to have something, He supplies the tests to see if you have enough faith and determination to get it. Or will you allow yourself to be bound to the excuses of this and that and never pass the tests He supplies.

Will you abort the process? Of Salvation? Of recieving the Kingdom of God? Of the abundant life promised by Christ? Of having all your need supplied by His riches in Glory? Of obtaining all that you inherited by the Death of Christ?

Whatever process you decide to abort, that process stops. The good news is that you can resume any of the processes, if you understand that it is not your will that has to be accomplished, it is His will that will be accomplished.