Believers Invest in the Gospel of Getting Rich...

[pinetree]

Even if the robe was a good one that does not mean Jesus was materially wealthy in the sense of accumulating STUFF. In a sense He was very rich as He truly believed that God would supply all of His needs. For example the tax to pay Ceasar found supernatually in the mouth of the fish the disciple caught. We never hear Him ask for money and yet we never get a sense that He was ever concerned about it either. God supplied his needs and yes some of it was from the people that followed Him. Needs not desires necessities not baggage. gg

Luk 8:1Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with Him,

Luk 8:2and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities--Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons,

Luk 8:3and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him [fn] from their substance.

Good post.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Yes,but the prosperity movement teaches that Jesus was materially rich..

The so-called "prosperity movement" does not teach this. Some preachers (the key word being SOME) in the movement teach this. That doesn't mean everyone affiliated with the movement believes this. You're broadbrushing, Piney.

While I don't believe Jesus was materially rich, I DO believe He never lived in lack during His ministry. The only time you see lack in the life of Jesus was on the cross, where He took our lack and insufficiency. So my question is if Jesus didn't live in lack, why should any Christian live in lack?

 

[gratefulgrace]

The so-called "prosperity movement" does not teach this. Some preachers (the key word being SOME) in the movement teach this. That doesn't mean everyone affiliated with the movement believes this. You're broadbrushing, Piney.

While I don't believe Jesus was materially rich, I DO believe He never lived in lack during His ministry. The only time you see lack in the life of Jesus was on the cross, where He took our lack and insufficiency. So my question is if Jesus didn't live in lack, why should any Christian live in lack?

unfortunately that is putting the cart before the horse so to speak. The Word says Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you. If you notice the context it was daily needs kind of things clothing food as well as freedom from worry and fear. When we truly covenant to follow our Lord we will follow Him humbly wherever he leads and not try to dictate to Him how it should play out with the STUFF. I think we should all ask ourselves today Lord how can I advance your kingdom today and see that someone in my christian family can have their needs met by you through me. We all have something we can give and I reiterate WE DO NOT DO IT TO RECIEVE. The Holy Spirit will show you if you ask Him. gg

 

[WileyCoyote]

unfortunately that is putting the cart before the horse so to speak. The Word says Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you. If you notice the context it was daily needs kind of things clothing food as well as freedom from worry and fear. When we truly covenant to follow our Lord we will follow Him humbly wherever he leads and not try to dictate to Him how it should play out with the STUFF. I think we should all ask ourselves today Lord how can I advance your kingdom today and see that someone in my christian family can have their needs met by you through me. We all have something we can give and I reiterate WE DO NOT DO IT TO RECIEVE. The Holy Spirit will show you if you ask Him. gg

So who does things just to receive from God? I sure don't. Do you?

Thank you for proving my point that there should be no lack in the life of a Christian. You said yourself the Word reveals that if we seek the Kingdom of God first, all of our needs will be added unto us. I'm confused how what I said can be equated to the "cart being put in front of the horse". Care to elaborate?

I don't have to worry about God meeting my needs if I'm following Him. He promised to do it. We are worth more than many sparrows. The needs of God's children being met also played out in the life of Jesus and His disciples. For example:

"Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered." (Luke 22:35)

So if Jesus and His disciples did not lack, we don't have to live in lack. I have experienced this provision in my life as well. The Holy Spirit will show you if you ask Him.

 

[Simon Peter]

While I don't believe Jesus was materially rich, I DO believe He never lived in lack during His ministry. The only time you see lack in the life of Jesus was on the cross, where He took our lack and insufficiency. So my question is if Jesus didn't live in lack, why should any Christian live in lack?

Depends what you call "lack"?

Is having no food for three days lack?

There is no suggestion that this was a fast.

Matthew 15:32 NIV
32 Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."

If Jesus owned a home, livestock (humanly speaking) or bank account; there's no mention of it in scriptures.

Luke 9:58 NIV
58 Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."


peace,
Simon

 

[gratefulgrace]

So who does things just to receive from God? I sure don't. Do you?

I hope not but I have heard tithing preached that way. Or the 'have a need plant a seed' that seems prevelant that focuses on our need as a reason to give. I think if we are giving as a way out of our need WE ARE getting the cart before the horse. We give because we love God and He directs us to do it. PERIOD. I have seen people in need condemned for their lack because if they were giving (read tithing) as they should they should be prospering. I am not making this up it happens. God word does not say that but men mess with it and that is the result. Condemnation. We should always go forward following the Lord's voice and obeying his word.

Thank you for proving my point that there should be no lack in the life of a Christian. You said yourself the Word reveals that if we seek the Kingdom of God first, all of our needs will be added unto us. I'm confused how what I said can be equated to the "cart being put in front of the horse". Care to elaborate?

Please see above comment it is just a matter of focus not necessarily outcome.

I don't have to worry about God meeting my needs if I'm following Him. He promised to do it. We are worth more than many sparrows. The needs of God's children being met also played out in the life of Jesus and His disciples. For example:

"Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered." (Luke 22:35)

So if Jesus and His disciples did not lack, we don't have to live in lack. I have experienced this provision in my life as well. The Holy Spirit will show you if you ask Him.

I think the previous poster has a good point. Who defines lack US or the voice of the Spirit speaking to our spirits. How much do we need? Hmmm.
gg

 

[WileyCoyote]

Depends what you call "lack"?

Is having no food for three days lack?

There is no suggestion that this was a fast.

Matthew 15:32 NIV
32 Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."

First, you have to prove these people didn't eat for three days. The passage doesn't say they didn't eat for three days, but that they had been with Jesus for three days. How do you know they didn't eat for two days and run out of food on the third? Here is this same passage in the amplified:

"Then Jesus called His disciples to Him and said, I have pity and sympathy and am deeply moved for the crowd, because they have been with Me now three days and they have nothing [at all left] to eat; and I am not willing to send them away hungry, lest they faint or become exhausted on the way." (Matthew 15:32)

Also, later on in the chapter, the disciples reveal to Jesus they had seven loaves of bread and a few small fish. So it's quite possible that there was an abundance of food but the food supply was scarce on the third day to the point where He couldn't feed everybody.

Can you prove exegetically that they didn't eat all three days? Because it seems to me you're trying to make that passage say what you want it to say.

If Jesus owned a home, livestock (humanly speaking) or bank account; there's no mention of it in scriptures.

Luke 9:58 NIV
58 Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."


peace,
Simon

Who said anything about Jesus owning a home, livestock or having a bank account? Do you guys just love adding to people's words or what?

Jesus constantly traveled, therefore had no permanent home. However, He was not against His disciples having a place to rest THEIR head. Earlier in chapter 9, we read:

"And He said to them, Do not take anything for your journey--neither walking stick, nor wallet [for a collection bag], nor food of any kind, nor money, and do not have two undergarments (tunics). And whatever house you enter, stay there until you go away [from that place]." (Luke 9:3-4)

And later Jesus would ask His disciples if they lacked anything after being sent out, to which they responded "nothing". It appears Jesus didn't mind His disciples having a place to rest their head or being without lack.

 

[pinetree]

The so-called "prosperity movement" does not teach this. Some preachers (the key word being SOME) in the movement teach this. That doesn't mean everyone affiliated with the movement believes this. You're broadbrushing, Piney.

While I don't believe Jesus was materially rich, I DO believe He never lived in lack during His ministry. The only time you see lack in the life of Jesus was on the cross, where He took our lack and insufficiency. So my question is if Jesus didn't live in lack, why should any Christian live in lack?

heloooo my old chum..
do you think reputations are earned?

 

[WileyCoyote]

I hope not but I have heard tithing preached that way. Or the 'have a need plant a seed' that seems prevelant that focuses on our need as a reason to give. I think if we are giving as a way out of our need WE ARE getting the cart before the horse. We give because we love God and He directs us to do it. PERIOD. I have seen people in need condemned for their lack because if they were giving (read tithing) as they should they should be prospering. I am not making this up it happens. God word does not say that but men mess with it and that is the result. Condemnation. We should always go forward following the Lord's voice and obeying his word.

I'm not denying this happens, however extremes can be found in every denomination and movement. For instance, there are some Christian sects who feel that those who leave the faith weren't true Christians to begin with. How cruel it is to tell someone who left the faith out of frustration that they never had genuine faith to begin with. This heartless accusation comes from those who teach sola fide and OSAS. There is no way someone can prove that a person was never saved. "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Theologically, the doctrine is built on a few eisegeted prooftexts.

Extremists exist in all camps. That doesn't mean everyone in that camp adheres to those extremes though.

I think the previous poster has a good point. Who defines lack US or the voice of the Spirit speaking to our spirits. How much do we need? Hmmm.

gg

I consider lack as having less than what is necessary to facilitate your physical survival. Paul said he would be content with food and clothing (1 Timothy 6:8). That right there tells me that food and clothing is seen biblically as a bare necessity. If you feel you can survive without food and clothing, more power to you. However I, as well as the Apostle Paul, see these as bare necessities that God will provide.

 

[gratefulgrace]

I'm not denying this happens, however extremes can be found in every denomination and movement. For instance, there are some Christian sects who feel that those who leave the faith weren't true Christians to begin with. How cruel it is to tell someone who left the faith out of frustration that they never had genuine faith to begin with. This heartless accusation comes from those who teach sola fide and OSAS. There is no way someone can prove that a person was never saved. "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Theologically, the doctrine is built on a few eisegeted prooftexts.

Extremists exist in all camps. That doesn't mean everyone in that camp adheres to those extremes though.


I consider lack as having less than what is necessary to facilitate your physical survival. Paul said he would be content with food and clothing (1 Timothy 6:8). That right there tells me that food and clothing is seen biblically as a bare necessity. If you feel you can survive without food and clothing, more power to you. However I, as well as the Apostle Paul, see these as bare necessities that God will provide.

I do not think the purpose of this thread is to attack anyone. I think the Op just wanted to point out what they saw as a false way of viewing prosperity and excessive showy possessions especially among Christian ministers. And using this excessive prosperity as proof of God's favour and blessing. Many of us do not believe this is a New Covenant measure of God's favour. gg

 

[WileyCoyote]

n/m

 

[Simon Peter]

First, you have to prove these people didn't eat for three days. The passage doesn't say they didn't eat for three days, but that they had been with Jesus for three days. How do you know they didn't eat for two days and run out of food on the third?

You're right that I can't prove it was three whole days without food, but as Jesus was concerned that they may "collapse" it's irrelevant about the number of days. The issue is that they had lacked food to the point of weakness.

Who said anything about Jesus owning a home, livestock or having a bank account? Do you guys just love adding to people's words or what?

I introduced the thought. I never claimed anyone else had said anything. Is there some rule I am not aware of that says you can't introduce thoughts? It's not like I was trying to get a chapter added to the canon!

Jesus constantly traveled, therefore had no permanent home. However, He was not against His disciples having a place to rest THEIR head. Earlier in chapter 9, we read:

"And He said to them, Do not take anything for your journey--neither walking stick, nor wallet [for a collection bag], nor food of any kind, nor money, and do not have two undergarments (tunics). And whatever house you enter, stay there until you go away [from that place]." (Luke 9:3-4)

And later Jesus would ask His disciples if they lacked anything after being sent out, to which they responded "nothing". It appears Jesus didn't mind His disciples having a place to rest their head or being without lack.

Wiley,

I know our God provides for us. No argument there. However, sometimes He will let us suffer for a season. And there's no promises of large houses, wealth and comfort; not in this life.

Read throught he scriptures again. And highlight all the men of God and people of God who suffered. If you pull out the 'post-Jesus' card, then just read about those after Jesus who suffered and were persecuted.

I believe 11 of the 12 disciples were martyrs? I'm going to assume that each of them suffered a lack of some sort, that resulted in death.




peace,
Simon

 

[WileyCoyote]

You're right that I can't prove it was three whole days without food, but as Jesus was concerned that they may "collapse" it's irrelevant about the number of days. The issue is that they had lacked food to the point of weakness.

Well you were the one who said they didn't eat for three days. Now after admitting you have no evidence for this, you are saying the number of days is irrelevant? As Piney would say, "You're pulling a switch-a-roo". The number of days was revelant enough for you to appeal to them to try to prove a point.

And no, the people with Jesus didn't "lack food to the point of weakness". Read your own scriptural prooftext:

Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.

Jesus wasn't concerned that they would collapse because they hadn't eaten. He was concerned that they would collapse ON THE WAY to where they were going because they ran out of food. Which is why He multiplied the food to such an extent that they brought baskets of it back with them. Not only did these people have an abundance while they were with Jesus, they also had an abundance on their way back to their homes. Unless you can prove otherwise.

I introduced the thought.

So you're setting up a strawman and you admit it. If nobody said this, why are YOU saying it?

Wiley,

I know our God provides for us. No argument there. However, sometimes He will let us suffer for a season. And there's no promises of large houses, wealth and comfort; not in this life.

Read throught he scriptures again. And highlight all the men of God and people of God who suffered. If you pull out the 'post-Jesus' card, then just read about those after Jesus who suffered and were persecuted.

I believe 11 of the 12 disciples were martyrs? I'm going to assume that each of them suffered a lack of some sort, that resulted in death.




peace,
Simon

Let's say I have a son. I promise to provide for his every need. Two days later, a psycho with a gun comes and shoots my son.

Does what that psycho did somehow negate what I promised my son? The life of my son was robbed from him. Had he been left alone, all his needs would have been provided for him.

Same thing with us. God promises to take care of our needs. If one of us is murdered for our faith, that doesn't negate what God promised us. That is putting the will of God in the hands of murderers and determining God's will based on experience rather than what the Word says. God's children being murdered is not His will. If it were, God wouldn't reward martyrs so abundantly when they get to heaven. Martyrs have their lives STOLEN from them. And who comes to steal, kill and destroy? Who is really responsible for Christian murders?

Remember, martyrdom is an extreme form of persecution. No wofer or "Prosperity Gospel" proponent denies we will get persecuted. In an ideal world, there would be no persecution because everyone would be following God. However, there are those who have decided out of their own free will to persecute those they do not agree with. I've faced persecution on this board and in "real life". Does that make me trust God any less? Nope. I choose to appeal to what God's Word says and refuse to let the circumstances around me determine my theology. You should try it.

 

[pinetree]

These are the homes,of some prominent..well known faith teachers..

 

[WileyCoyote]

Nice homes.

 

[pinetree]

Nice homes.

mini lol..

There is no getting around the facts,and the doctrine of Jesus..

He taught about giving..

Here is the doctrine of Jesus..

False Teachers and True Contentment

1 Tim 6:3-5 3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

See it in the Amplified...


5And protracted wrangling and wearing discussion and perpetual friction among men who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit [a moneymaking business, a means of livelihood]. From such withdraw.

See it in the NLT..


5 These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth. To them, a show of godliness is just a way to become wealthy.

see....

 

[WileyCoyote]

mini lol..

There is no getting around the facts,and the doctrine of Jesus..

He taught about giving..

Here is the doctrine of Jesus..

False Teachers and True Contentment

1 Tim 6:3-5 3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

See it in the Amplified...


5And protracted wrangling and wearing discussion and perpetual friction among men who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit [a moneymaking business, a means of livelihood]. From such withdraw.

See it in the NLT..


5 These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth. To them, a show of godliness is just a way to become wealthy.

see....

So having a nice house is proof that you are preaching a "different doctrine"?

 

[gratefulgrace]

Could be. Besides this goes a bit beyond 'nice house' don't you think????

 

[rahmiyn]

So having a nice house is proof that you are preaching a "different doctrine"?

If in any way you are teaching others that this "nice house" is a blessing from God because of your giving, then yes. That is a false doctrine.

20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.(Matthew 6:20)

The blessings the apostles speak of are spiritual and go far beyond any earthly possession.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Besides this goes a bit beyond 'nice house' don't you think????

I don't know if it does. Because Piney showed a bunch of houses and then quoted scripture talking about different doctrine. So it seems to me Piney is trying to prove a nice house is synonymous with "different doctrine".