cicero:

I am forever grateful that I belong to the great army of consistent tithers. By doing in faith with our income what the mind of man ordinarily opposes, we have cheaply subdued and enslaved money.

Same as the pharisees Jesus condemned in the the book of Matthew 23:23.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

Same as the pharisees Jesus condemned in the the book of Matthew 23:23.

Don't be too quick to use a verse to condemn anyone. If anything, there are many verses that could be pulled rapidly to wash you as well.

KunleOshob:

@pilgrim.1
i don't know why you keep asking for a single verse that condens tithing in the new testament when i have already given you two. NO matter how much you want to deny it Hebrews 7: 12& 18 clearly anull and condenm tithes.

You're trying to force your own readings for condemning tithes into those verses - whereas all honest opposers to tithes know that those verses do not condemn tithes, nor are tithes condemned in any single verse of the Bible. It is because you treat the Law in a way that the Bibloe never treats it, that is why you still make these huge mistakes to assert what the Bible never once did about the Law. I have already provided a few of those mishaps - and you have not been able to counter them. The moment you open your eyes to what exactly "the Law" is in the Bible, you will then see your mistakes.

KunleOshob:

It is very instructive that this condenmation comes immediately after the verse 8 which you have allowed to confuse you.

There is no condemnation of tithes anywhere in the Bible. If you are still vacantly assertive, please address the simple question I left you about Hebrews 7:8. Why have you been so evasive about that question?

KunleOshob:

Yes an example was given in verse 8 comparing Jesus christ to Melchidezek, but the practise of tithing was not even remotely suggested.

Please be honest, not suggestive. Verse 8 did not seek to compare Jesus Christ to Melchizedek. Incase you forgot, let me quote it again from two versions:

● Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood]
tithes are received by men who are subject to death;
while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are
received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].
~~ [AMPLIFIED]

● And here men that die receive tithes;
but there he receiveth them,
of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
~~ [KJV]

That verse was not "comparing" Jesus Christ to Melchizedek. If anything, what that verse "compares" is priesthoods. These priesthoods are outlined this way:

* In the first place (ie., "HERE", men subject to death receive tithes;

* whereas, in the other instance (ie, "THERE", he "receives" them
-- this "HE" who receives them - WHO is "HE"?
-- what characterizes Him?
-- why does it say that He "receives" (or "receiveth" them?
-- on what basis does it say He receives them?
-- why does it specifically mention that it is because of the fact that. .
. . He LIVES PERPETUALLY?
-- if He "condemned" tithes, why mention that He receives them?
-- if He receives them, where is the "condemned" in that verse?

What would be the meaning of mentioning that He receives tithes if He actually condemned them - when the basis for this is the fact that He lives perpetually?

There is not a single verse in that Hebrews 7 or the entire Bible that condemns tithes - not one! People read their condemnation into a verse that does not remotely hint such a position at all.

KunleOshob:

That reference was just to demonstrate to the hebrew people the superiority of Christ over Abraham.

Wrong again. It was not Abraham that was in question in that verse - go and check again. You make these mistakles because you simply do not want to study that verse more closely. Abraham had no priesthood - and that verse showed that the priesthood of Melchizedek  supercedes the LEVITICAL priesthood. Now, which of these two priesthoods does our Lord Jesus Christ minister in - the Levitical or Melchzedek? If Christ is after the order of Melchizedek, what does Hebrews 7:8 demonstrate in reference to such verses as -

            ● Hebrews 5:8

            ● Hebrews 5:10

            ● Hebrews 6:20

            ● Hebrews 7:11

            ● Hebrews 7:17

            ● Hebrews 7:21

Because you don't see beyond your mistakes, that is why you mix these things up and end at verse 18 - well, take another look at verse 21 to see the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over that of Levi. From chapter 5, through ch. 6, and then through to ch. 7, it was emphatically demonstrated that the priesthood of Melchizedek was -

           * superior to the Levitical Law

           * superior to the Levitical priesthood

As such, my bros, Hebrews 7:8 categorically mentioned that the reason why He RECEIVES tithes is because He lives PERPETUALLY, which is what Heb. 7:16 shows in reference to the basis of the priesthood that our Lord ministers - "after the power of an endless life".

Before you make any assertion based on misconceptions, please go study these verses carefully. What you asserted for 7:8 is not so.

KunleOshob:

So stop confusing issues.

I wasn't. That's why I have tried to set you straight.

KunleOshob:

I suggest you go and read the passage again then answer which comandment was described as weak and useless in verse 18 and which law was set aside in verse 12. The answer lies clearly in verse 5 which mentions the specific commandment being anulled.

Oga, tithes in that whole chapter is not a matter of LAW, but of PRIESTHOOD!  

The One who lives perpetually receives tithes, not because it was based on the law under the levitical priesthood, but because the Melchizedek priesthood to which our Lord Jesus was called of God is after the power of an endless life! Lol.

Enjoy.

@Pilgrim.1
Obviously you have chosen not to go back and study the word of God for true understanding of the scripture. You have even further confused issues. Can you imagine you saying that Melchizedek collected tithes becos he lives for ever where was that stated any where in the bible or are you as usual trying to force another meaning in to that scripture? the whole of hebrews 7 was primarily to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham (Their greatest ancestor) by comparing Jesus to some already recorded in the scriptures as superior to Abraham. It wasn't primarily about tithes even though tithes was also condenmed and stated not to be relevant to the priesthood of christ. The reason why tithes was anulled in verse 12 was clearly stated in verse 13. The reason being Jesus was not from the tribe of the levites. My dear i know you are a very intelligent girl, so you shouldn't find it very difficult to read and understand this very simple truths in the bible. I think the propblem is one of pride and not wanting to admit you are wrong on any issue you pitch your tent in, it is soo so obvious my dear that you are working to a predetermined answer and not willing to accept the truth or other views on this issue.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

@Pilgrim.1
Obviously you have chosen not to go back and study the word of God for true understanding of the scripture. You have even further confused issues. Can you imagine you saying that Melchizedek collected tithes because he lives for ever where was that stated any where in the bible or are you as usual trying to force another meaning in to that scripture?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh deary me!   Kunle darling, where did your darling pilgrim.1 ever say that "Melchizedek collected tithes because he lives for ever"?

I only have asked that question on verse 8 of that chapter without trying to force my reading into the text; and because those who oppose and condemn tithes have forever refused to answer that simple question, I have not sought to go beyond what it states. If you do not care to offer an answer as simply as requested, why then allege your own misconception into my query on that verse?

KunleOshob:

the whole of hebrews 7 was primarily to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham (Their greatest ancestor) by comparing Jesus to some already recorded in the scriptures as superior to Abraham.

You're wrong, Kunle. Hebrews 7 does not seek to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham. I have to be firm with you here because you have failed to ask very important questions that would guide your thinking. Let me help you some:

    If the comparison was between Jesus and Abraham, then -

●  on what basis was that comparison?

●  on what priesthood was that comparison?

●  on what law was that comparison?

●  on what covenant was that comparison?

When you look closely, also ask yourself WHY the book of Hebrews would even need to compare between Jesus and Abraham - of what import was that to the Hebrews? Were they seeking to elevate Abraham and make much more of him than of Jesus? These conjectures you postulate are vacant - they have nothing to rest on other than your vacant personal assertions.

KunleOshob:

It wasn't primarily about tithes even though tithes was also condenmed and stated not to be relevant to the priesthood of christ.

Please, please and please, it was never once condemned. Nor does Scripture ever state that tithes were not relevant to the priesthood of Christ. You don't seem to understand the nature of that priesthood, that is why you don't understand what verse 8 is saying. For all intents and purposes, the Bible does not "state" what you are forcing it to say; and if it did ever state it so, please without dribbling round, just quote the verse directly where it stated it so.

At least, if I said that the Bible "stated" that outward circumcision is not relevant to the Christian, I have quoted the verses where the Bible categorically stated it so -

        --  1 Corinthians 7:19

        --  Galatians 5:2

        --  Galatians 5:3

        --  Galatians 5:6

        --  Galatians 6:15

Now, is there anywhere the Bible states the same thing about TITHES? Why allege that it "stated" a condemnation for tithes when you can't find that verse directly? This weak assertion that non-tithers make is the reason why your argument is fast losing grounds and becoming too soft to be of any serious concern.

If the Bible actually "stated" that tithes are condemned, please quote the verse directly and refrain from doodling on the subject.

KunleOshob:

The reason why tithes was anulled in verse 12 was clearly stated in verse 13. The reason being Jesus was not from the tribe of the levites. My dear i know you are a very intelligent girl, so you shouldn't find it very difficult to read and understand this very simple truths in the bible.

I am not that intelligent, believe me. Just because I argue these things passionately does not mean that I'm correct in all things - but, then even 13 does not negate the point made in verse 8. And if anything, verse 13 shows what I have been saying all along: my persuasions to tithe are not based on any reason to fulfill Judaism.

Judaism answers to the ministry of the Levites on two fundamental points:

                 * the Levitical priesthood

                 * the Law

However, when verse 13 states that "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar", we immediately see two things again:

                 * the tribe

                 * the altar

Jesus was not from the tribe of the Levites, but rather from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14), hence Moses spoke nothing about priesthood. Does that mean therefore that our Lord had no priesthood and no altar? Bros, He did - and here is where the whole thing eludes some people:

            * the priesthood - after the order of Melchizedek (vv. 15-17)

            * the power - after the power of an endless life (vv. 8, 16 & 24)

            * the principle - a heavenly High Priest (ch. 9:11)

            * the person - Jesus Himself (ch. 6:20)

            * the prototype - the HEAVENLY ALTAR (ch. 13:10 - "we have an altar"

In all these things, those who make the mistakes you keep making may not have seen these matters indeed - and that is why they don't have any answers to Heb. 7:8 but make all sorts of suggestions and excuses which scuttle round that verse.

KunleOshob:

I think the propblem is one of pride and not wanting to admit you are wrong on any issue you pitch your tent in, it is soo so obvious my dear that you are working to a predetermined answer and not willing to accept the truth or other views on this issue.

I would only acknowledge anything you say that is true - not the vacant statements you make without a reference for your "collective condemnation" which you dribbled into the Bible and call it "truth", lol. Until you calm down and go to God's Word, it would be hard for anyone to digest your vacant assertions.

Talk of pride? lol, how could I be proud to give my tithes? I'm sorry for you - tithing has nothing to do with pride; but if non-tithers play 'God' and use their vacant "collective condemnation" to mislead anyone, that is where we come in and set you guys straight.

Jolly yourself o jare!

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob,
You're wrong, Kunle. Hebrews 7 does not seek to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham. I have to be firm with you here because you have failed to ask very important questions that would guide your thinking. Let me help you some:

If the comparison was between Jesus and Abraham, then -

● on what basis was that comparison?

● on what priesthood was that comparison?

● on what law was that comparison?

● on what covenant was that comparison?

When you look closely, also ask yourself WHY the book of Hebrews would even need to compare between Jesus and Abraham - of what import was that to the Hebrews? Were they seeking to elevate Abraham and make much more of him than of Jesus? These conjectures you postulate are vacant - they have nothing to rest on other than your vacant personal assertions.

My dear, i think you need a little bit of schooling in understanding bible scripture here First of all when reading any scripture, you have to understand the reason behind the writning of the scripture. For instance the book of hebrew is a letter assumed to have been written by Paul the the hebrew people and it's basic aim is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over existing jewish practises and belief. The idea behind comparing Jesus to Abraham was becos Abraham was the most highly revered ancestor in Jewish history, he was regarded as someone very great. Considering the fact that letter was addressed to the hebrew people who would appreciate the greatness of Abraham, he was used as an example to demonstrate the greatness of Jesus. Abraham's greatness had nothing to do with any priesthood. He was just used as an example becos he was the greatest man known to the hebrew people of that time. Now demonstrating Jesus to be greater than there greatest ancestor would help them understand the greatness of Jesus better.

Now to your hebrew 7: 8 which you are tended to quote out of context. What exactly does it say? Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually

You make so much noise about this particular verse, the problem is i fail to see how this even remotely suggests that tithes is applicable to christians. What this verse tries to demonstrate is that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the levite priesthood, this Melchizedek priesthood was now further equated to the priesthood of Jesus to demonstrate that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to the levite preisthood. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing in the verse that relates tithing to christian practise and doctrine. Not even vaguely Again i wonder why you are trying to force justification for tithing into this scripture, if the writter of hebrews felt that christians ought to tithe, it would have been clearly stated, but what did the writer do? He set the law (of which tithing was referenced as a commandment in the law) aside in verse 12, and he further condenmed it describing it as weak and useless in verse 18. I know you would still argue on this point even though it is glaring. May be you can prove your points better by telling us in specific terms which law was set aside in verse 12(quoting fro the bible)and which one was condenmed in verse 18.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

My dear, i think you need a little bit of schooling in understanding bible scripture here First of all when reading any scripture, you have to understand the reason behind the writning of the scripture.

Thank you. If you had a clue about Biblical eschatology, you would not have been spinning around the basic of all subjects: the Law. Your assertions and vacant thoughts mixing the issues of the Law in issues of the new covenant is now a serious joke.

KunleOshob:

For instance the book of hebrew is a letter assumed to have been written by Paul the the hebrew people and it's basic aim is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over existing jewish practises and belief. The idea behind comparing Jesus to Abraham was because Abraham was the most highly revered ancestor in Jewish history, he was regarded as someone very great. Considering the fact that letter was addressed to the hebrew people who would appreciate the greatness of Abraham, he was used as an example to demonstrate the greatness of Jesus. Abraham's greatness had nothing to do with any priesthood.

Again, this is just another vacant exculpation. Think for a moment: was it only Abraham that was regarded as "very great" by the Jews? Moses and others enunciated in chapter 11 were men of great faith in hebrews - but those figures were not in "comparison" with or to the Lord Jesus. Go and read that same chapter 7 again and read other places where Abraham was spoken of - like Romans chapter 4. The NT has never in one instance tried to compare or contrast between Abraham and Jesus Christ - not in one instance. Everywhere you find Abraham mentioned, it was not as amtter of comparison with Christ, but rather to show how that through Abraham the promises of God have come to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

However, in Hebrews, Abraham is never spoken of as in comparison or contrast to Jesus Christ! If there was any reason why that would have been the case, there definitely should have been several reasons for the comparison. Did you provide any reason other than the vacant suggestion you read into the text?

KunleOshob:

He was just used as an example because he was the greatest man known to the hebrew people of that time. Now demonstrating Jesus to be greater than there greatest ancestor would help them understand the greatness of Jesus better.

It is sweet that you're dreaming up these things - however, they have no bearing on the mention of Abraham in Hebrews. The Hebrews already knew the greatness of Abraham, and other texts call upon us to appreciate the greatness of Abraham as well. It is an entirely moot point that the apostle would even have tried to compare Abraham to Jesus or vice versa - there just was no reason for the comparison - because it was not a matter of who was great or greater in that book!

KunleOshob:

Now to your hebrew 7: 8 which you are tended to quote out of context. What exactly does it say? Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually

You make so much noise about this particular verse, the problem is i fail to see how this even remotely suggests that tithes is applicable to christians.

Alleging that I quoted it out of context is not addressing the simple question I have asked. If you cannot answer that question, Kunle, you don't know what it says or you simply want to continue evading it! What are all the excuses you have been giving instead of answering that simple question? I have not asked you to see the relevance of its applicability to Christians - that was not the question.

The question still is: WHO is HE that receives TITHES because He lives PERPETUALLY?

Is that question so biting that you are at pains to keep scuttling round it?  Even when you must make excuses for that verse, Kunle, who is HE that lives perpetually? People who force their hubris into the text by assuming a "collective condemnation" where God never said so are never going to answer that question - you're only further confirming the case.

KunleOshob:

What this verse tries to demonstrate is that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the levite priesthood, this Melchizedek priesthood was now further equated to the priesthood of Jesus to demonstrate that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to the levite preisthood. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing in the verse that relates tithing to christian practise and doctrine.

WHO is HE that receives TITHES because it is testified that He LIVES PERPETUALLY?

KunleOshob:

Not even vaguely Again i wonder why you are trying to force justification for tithing into this scripture, if the writter of hebrews felt that christians ought to tithe, it would have been clearly stated, but what did the writer do?

Hebrews 7:8 - WHO is HE that receives TITHES because it is testified that He LIVES PERPETUALLY?

KunleOshob:

He set the law (of which tithing was referenced as a commandment in the law) aside in verse 12, and he further condenmed it describing it as weak and useless in verse 18. I know you would still argue on this point even though it is glaring. May be you can prove your points better by telling us in specific terms which law was set aside in verse 12(quoting fro the bible)and which one was condenmed in verse 18.

I have shown you again and again that the issue of tithes here is not the one based on the Law. Melchizedek did not receive TITHES from Abraham anywhere because of the Law - not one time. What the Law did not originate it cannot condemn or nullify! Because you really don't know what the Law is, that is why you keep schlepping this same sob story about the Levitical law and priesthood.

To answer your question on hebrews 7: 8 which i have answered several times in the past, the person that received tithe and lived perpetualy being refered to in that passage is Melcizedek.
My dear, as usual you fail to digest a post well before rushing to respond, i never stated Jesus was compared to Abraham. What i stated was that jesus was compared to Melchizedek who in that scripture was demonstrated to be greater than Abraham( the patriach/ greatest progenitor of the hebrews) and the reason being so that the people the letter was addressed to (hebrew people) would appreciate the greatness.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

To answer your question on hebrews 7: 8 which i have answered several times in the past, the person that received tithe and lived perpetualy being refered to in that passage is Melcizedek.

1. Here, men that are subject to death receive tithes.

2. There, He of whom it is testified that He lives perpetually receives them.

That's Hebrews 7:8 - if it was Melchizedek that was in view in that verse, you are saying he lives perpetually, yes? On what basis, Kunle?

KunleOshob:

My dear, as usual you fail to digest a post well before rushing to respond, i never stated Jesus was compared to Abraham. What i stated was that jesus was compared to Melchizedek who in that scripture was demonstrated to be greater than Abraham( the patriach/ greatest progenitor of the hebrews) and the reason being so that the people the letter was addressed to (hebrew people) would appreciate the greatness.

If you never stated that Jesus was compared to Abraham, then what is this in your previous quotes? Here -

(1) [list]

KunleOshob:

The idea behind comparing Jesus to Abraham was because was the most highly revered ancestor in Jewish history, he was regarded as someone very great.

[/list]

(2) [list]

KunleOshob:

Now demonstrating Jesus to be greater than there greatest ancestor would help them understand the greatness of Jesus better.

[/list]

(3) [list]

KunleOshob:

the whole of hebrews 7 was primarily to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham (Their greatest ancestor) by comparing Jesus to some already recorded in the scriptures as superior to Abraham.

[/list]

Go and check again O. . . abi you want me to draw out some more for you to show how many times you had been making that assertion? Were you not making the "comparison" between Jesus and Abraham in those quotes above?!?

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob,

1. Here, men that are subject to death receive tithes.

2. There, He of whom it is testified that He lives perpetually receives them.

That's Hebrews 7:8 - if it was Melchizedek that was in view in that verse, you are saying he lives perpetually, yes? On what basis, Kunle?

I don't believe that my dear pilgrim.1 that tithes on the basis of Melchizedek priesthood does not know that the bible implies that Melchizedek lives perpetually. I would refer you to verse 3 of the same chapter which says : He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

On the issue of comparing jesus with Abraham, what i meant is that the crux of the matter was that Jesus was primarily being compared to Melchizedek and an analogy was taken from the superiority of melchizeek to Abraham to explain the greatness of Jesus. Jesus was not directly being compared with Abraham.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

On the issue of comparing jesus with Abraham, what i meant is that the crux of the matter was that Jesus was primarily being compared to Melchizedek and an analogy was taken from the superiority of melchizeek to Abraham to explain the greatness of Jesus. Jesus was not directly being compared with Abraham.

Grammar!   Oga mi, e joko si bi. The one thing to point out was that "yes", you did compare Jesus to Abraham. It is irrelevant at this point whatever you meant! So, to shout initially that you "never" did so, . . .hmm, make I chill!

@KunleOshob,

Now, let me take the time to attend on the more important gist.

KunleOshob:

I don't believe that my dear pilgrim.1 that tithes on the basis of Melchizedek priesthood does not know that the bible implies that Melchizedek lives perpetually. I would refer you to verse 3 of the same chapter which says : He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Lol, if you assumed that I did not know (or had ignored verse 3), why didn't you ask me? I had tried to avoid defining anyone's position for them, and that was why I often ask questions so that I don't run the risk of misreading them before they declare their position. Hmmm, the way you play this wooing sef, e don dey tire me O!

Anyway, here bros: I had recognized Hebrews 7:3 when trying to understand verse 8 and infact the whole of Hebrews and Genesis where the event occured. Notice something there, Kunle - Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God, not the other way round. What that chapter was establishing for us was just one thing: the unchangeable priesthood of Melchizedek, and not the endless life of Melchizedek. If there was anyone in the entire Bible that had an endless life, it was Jesus Himself - that is why that verse 3 stated that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God, and not the other way round.

Christ preceded Melchizedek; and before chapter 7, we learn about the preeminence of Christ over all things right from chapter 1:10 & 12 - "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. . . but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

The only other place part from Genesis and Hebrews where we read about Melchizedek is in Psalm 110:4. Why so? I submit it was to help us understand just two things:

    (a) the Levitical priesthood would not endure for all time

    (b) the priesthood of Melchizedek preceded all other priesthoods

This verse is a bit difficult to digest for some; but most people recognize that Melchizedek's genealogy was not recorded - for which cause it is said that he was "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life". This is pointing to the absence of any recorded genealogy, and not to the man himself. To suppose that Melchizedek lives perpetually (verse 8) is to encounter two major problems:

   (1)   there would be two figures that had no beginning nor end of life:
          Jesus and Melchizedek

   (2)  there would be no basis for the priesthood itself:
          for there cannot be two priests concurrently ministering
          in the heavenly tabernacle and altar.

If indeed Melchizedek was still a priest, could you tell me (a) if there are concurrently two highpriests? (b) who Melchizedek is ministering to today?

Actually, if Melchizedek is not still a priest today (shocking, I know), then where do I stand? Here: the Bible states that the type of priesthood that Melchizedek had was an "unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:24). Please calm down and pay very close attention to verses 24 & 25 -

           'But this man, because he continueth ever,
            hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able
            also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God
            by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them'.

Did you catch that, Kunle?  Now a few questions to help us think carefully:

       (a) WHO is "this man" in verse 24?
       It says in verse 24 that "this man" continueth ever - the same thing we see in v. 8 -
       "he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth"

       (b) WHO is this man that "continueth ever" in verse 24?
       If we say that it was Melchizedek, then we would have to deal with
       what the other statements in those verses point to!

       (c) WHO is this man that is "able to save to the uttermost" in verse 25?
        There is your answer - unless you deliberately want to ignore it,
        there is only One Person of whom Scripture testifies that ----
        He lives PERPETUALLY, for it is He who has the unchangeable priesthood!!
        That Person is JESUS CHRIST! He alone is able to save; He alone
        is the One who continueth ever.

There is only one Priest, Kunle - not two. To suppose that the One being testified of in verse 3, 8 and 24-25 is Melchizedek, is to throw yourself into further confusion.

I recognize that these things have a huge problem to many. That's no problem to me, because like I said, once you are able to grasp the particular literary style of the wirter of Hebrews, you will easily follow his pen.

Let me show you an example of his style: In Hebrews 11:17, the writer names Isaac as "only begotten son" of Abraham! This is another example of how the writer styles the covenant blessings - and anyone missing this would argue that the writer was deliberately contradicting Genesis! I don't think so; and I would like to leave it as a small assignment for you to consider - it's easy, I know; but if you can get the answer to that, then Hebrews 7 will not be difficult to see.

Enjoy!

My dear pilgrim.1 as usual it seems as if you are working towards a predetermined answer. The bible is clear that Melchizadek lives forever don't try and force another meaning into that scripture. That apart i don't think either of us is adequaetly equipped to argue this issue of Melchizedek cos we don't have enough facts on him. The bible is rather scanty as far as melchizedek is concerned yet he was probably the most importat high priest in biblical times. Even the new testament compares him to Jesus. The truth is that the catholic church deliberately ommited books written on melchizedek when compiling the bible so that it would not cause confusion as to the superiority of christ since they both had a lot of similar attributes. The catholic church was more intetersted in projecting the superiority of christ hence they blanked out melchizedek. Several writings on melchizedek are to this day still locked up in the vaults of the Vatican

KunleOshob:

My dear pilgrim.1 as usual it seems as if you are working towards a predetermined answer. The bible is clear that Melchizadek lives forever don't try and force another meaning into that scripture. That apart i don't think either of us is adequaetly equipped to argue this issue of Melchizedek because we don't have enough facts on him. The bible is rather scanty as far as melchizedek is concerned yet he was probably the most importat high priest in biblical times. Even the new testament compares him to Jesus. The truth is that the catholic church deliberately ommited books written on melchizedek when compiling the bible so that it would not cause confusion as to the superiority of christ since they both had a lot of similar attributes. The catholic church was more intetersted in projecting the superiority of christ hence they blanked out melchizedek. Several writings on melchizedek are to this day still locked up in the vaults of the Vatican

Dear Kunle,

You had formerly been pointing to the Bible for your idea that tithes were condemned. When you argued forever on that, you never appealed to any "blanked out" or "omitted" books by Catholic hands. I didn't expect anything other than the excuse above, because I indeed made the same mistakes you are making until my eyes were opened about verses 3, 8 and 24-25 of Hebrews 7.

When we read the Bible today, the Holy Spirit guides us to pointers that would help our thinking. In discussing those verses, one could not just blankly assume what you are assuming - because by doing so, we would find huge problems between verses. This was why we needed to identify the very One in those verses that point to just one thing: He alone lives perpetually. Who that Person is cannot be confused at all when we read verses 24-25. Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God, never the other way round. That is an important factor to help you see the whole chapter - and failing there, is to fail to understand verse 8.

Think on these things, and let me know if you find anyone else who lives perpetually (or, "continueth ever" apart from Christ.

Shalom.

As i said i my last post neither of us is equipped enough to argue on this issue of Melchizedek, there is too much mystery sorrounding his history. But one thing is certain the bible is clear that "he is a priest forever" and he also "lives forever" the fact that the bible says he was "made like unto the son of God" does not preclude the fact that he lives forever. Other characters that did not die and are assumed to still be alive in the bible are Moses and Elijah ( they both never died and both appeared to Jesus physically during the transfiguration) we can also assume they live perpetually. My dear pilgrim.1 it was becos of this kind of reason/ argument that you have raised that Mechizedek was essentially blanked out of the bible. The church essentially did not want any rival figure for Jesus christ in the bible. The exact reason you find it soo difficult to fathom is the reason why he was blanked out.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

As i said i my last post neither of us is equipped enough to argue on this issue of Melchizedek, there is too much mystery sorrounding his history. But one thing is certain the bible is clear that "he is a priest forever" and he also "lives forever" the fact that the bible says he was "made like unto the son of God" does not preclude the fact that he lives forever. Other characters that did not die and are assumed to still be alive in the bible are Moses and Elijah ( they both never died and both appeared to Jesus physically during the transfiguration) we can also assume they live perpetually.

There is no mystery about Melchizedek that is given in the Bible that we can't understand. It seems that those who argue the way you do only make these excuses because they do not want to reason out of Scripture but rather reason into Scripture. Where their ideas fail, they come back with excuses about Catholic Church did-this-and-did-that! This is why it should be clear to you by now that all the while, you have been making so many mistakes in so many issues - the Law was "dead and buried", the "collective condemnation" that is non-existent, Jesus being compared with Abraham whereas not so, and several others.

When you calm down and open your heart to see the simplicity of these matters and ask salient questions to guide your thinking, the "mystery" about Melchizedek becomes easier to grasp. This was why I asked questions - and because I guessed you would not answer them, I provided answers upfront. If you saw something there in all what I had discussed that was not clear to you, do kindly point them out. Otherwise, you could carefully reflect on the questions I asked and see what answers could come to your mind. If you have no answers, is there any surprise that your new excuses now is to keep screaming about Catholic Church did this, that and the other?

KunleOshob:

My dear pilgrim.1 it was because of this kind of reason/ argument that you have raised that Mechizedek was essentially blanked out of the bible.

What do you really know for a fact about Melchizedek outside the Bible?

KunleOshob:

The church essentially did not want any rival figure for Jesus christ in the bible. The exact reason you find it soo difficult to fathom is the reason why he was blanked out.

In other words, if these "blanks" were included, you would have had Melchizedek "rival" your own Saviour and Redeemer? You, Kunle, would be so confused as to not be able to know for certain that nobody matched the Person and power of Christ?

Dear sir, even if some other figures were intentionally to be added more powerful than Melchizedek, it would not faze me in any way from knowing who the Saviour and Redeemer is! It would not confuse in my mind who is the One that lives perpetually! It would not confuse in my mind who the High Priest truly is, and the fact that there is only ONE HighPriest in the heavenly sanctuary. It would never confuse in my mind who is being spoken of as receiving tithes because it is testified of Him that He lives perpetually! There would be no doubt as to WHO this same Person is, that is able to save to the uttermost - seeing that it is through Him that we come unto God (Hebrews 7:3, 8, 24-25).

When you try to read your own musings into Scripture and find that you cannot establish your assertions therein for your collective condemnation, it would not come as a surprise that you would appeal to the excuse of "blanked out" books and accusations against the Catholic Church. My dear, I was not born a Catholic, never grew up as one; I also stupidly attacked the Catholic Church on many things (though some of my convictions remain the same). But if blaming our every misgivings on the Catholic Church is all we can do, we should cover our heads in shame! This is just a sign that we don't even know our own Bibles before blaming the Catholic Church.

Whatever we need to know about Melchizedek in relation to the heavenly priesthood is in your Bible. Open it and read with an open heart, and refrain from excusing your misgivings on Catholics. That way, it would be easier to receive from God.

Blessings.

My dear as i stated earlier, you are not well equipped enough to dabble into this topic. I have always known about the mysterious nature of melchizedek( which i am sure you know little about) so i am not making excuses cos of this arguments. If i were to start telling you about the little i know about Melchizedek it would completely derail the topic. One thing is certain the bible provides very little information on Melchizedek so stop carrying on as if all there is to know about him is already recorded in the bible. There are several other sources of info on melcizedek which you may not be aware of, but i won't go into it now. And i am not being evasive cos as i said earlier we are not well equipped enough to dicuss the topic thogroughly.

@Pilgrim.1
A lot of bible scholars have done a lot of research on Melchizedek you can check out some of their submissions on this links:

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-is-melchizedek.html

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030126.htm

http://ad2004.com/Biblecodes/Hebrewmatrix/melchizedek.html

Dear KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

My dear as i stated earlier, you are not well equipped enough to dabble into this topic. I have always known about the mysterious nature of melchizedek( which i am sure you know little about) so i am not making excuses because of this arguments. If i were to start telling you about the little i know about Melchizedek it would completely derail the topic. One thing is certain the bible provides very little information on Melchizedek so stop carrying on as if all there is to know about him is already recorded in the bible.

Please read me well - I was not carrying on. This is clearly what I stated:[list]

pilgrim.1:

There is no mystery about Melchizedek that is given in the Bible that we can't understand.
. . .

When you calm down and open your heart to see the simplicity of these matters and ask salient questions to guide your thinking, the "mystery" about Melchizedek becomes easier to grasp.
What do you really know for a fact about Melchizedek outside the Bible?

In other words, if these "blanks" were included, you would have had Melchizedek "rival" your own Saviour and Redeemer? You, Kunle, would be so confused as to not be able to know for certain that nobody matched the Person and power of Christ?

[/list]

Even in your riposte, I don't see anything significant that you have presented that deviates sharply from what I stated earlier.

KunleOshob:

There are several other sources of info on melcizedek which you may not be aware of, but i won't go into it now. And i am not being evasive because as i said earlier we are not well equipped enough to dicuss the topic thogroughly.

Let's see from the sources you quoted:

KunleOshob:

A lot of bible scholars have done a lot of research on Melchizedek you can check out some of their submissions on this links:

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-is-melchizedek.html

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030126.htm

http://ad2004.com/Biblecodes/Hebrewmatrix/melchizedek.html

So again, what essentially are they saying that I was largely unware of about Melchizedek that I have not highlighted in relation to this subject? Agreed, this thread is not about Melchizedek per se; but it's my observation that while you may have some problem about what I presented, the links you provided are saying essentially the same things - by going to the same Bible, rather than seeking to blame the Catholic Church for some "blanked out" documents about Melchizedek. Let me refer you to a few:

(1) From here: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-is-melchizedek.html

● 'Christ only is the Son of God and a priest continually.
The Bible labels Jesus our High Priest ( Hebr. 6:20).'

(2) From here: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030126.htm

● Jesus Is The "High Priest For Ever"

Both sites were part of what I had perused before my engaging you in this thread on tithes. But what essentially are they saying that I have not said about Jesus Christ alone being the High Priest? Did they say that Melchizedek, instead of Jesus Christ, is the High Priest?

The only shade of interpretation which I did not mention but was mentioned by your source (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-is-melchizedek.html) is this:

● There can be no doubt that Melchizedek of the Old Testament
was the Word ( John 1:1) that later became Jesus Christ.

Now, I did not draw that inference anywhere, because if I did, I know a lot of people who would come down on me that I was going beyond what Scripture states. But isn't it funny that you're the very person directing me to those sites making such assertions?

If I were to follow your lead to those sites and set my thoughts on their own interpretation, then it only means that you have recommended something which deflates your own arguments.

How?

The simple point here is to look again about what I said about Christ being the High Priest. He alone is the One who lives perpetually. And going by that, if your sources are saying that Melchizedek is the same as the Word (John 1:1) that later became Jesus Christ, then does that not strike you that they would be saying that Jesus Christ is the One who is pointed out in Hebrews 7:8?!?

Look again:

● There can be no doubt that Melchizedek of the Old Testament
was the Word ( John 1:1) that later became Jesus Christ.

In other words, Melchizedek (according to them) IS Jesus Christ. That being so, my question is this:

● WHO is HE that receives TITHES because He lives perpetually??
Hebrews 7:8.

If they say that Melchizedek is Christ, they are saying that Christ receives tithes because He lives perpetually (Hebrews 7:8). If you wan complain, address your complaints to them - not to me. You're the one who recommended those sites, and you should be addressing your reco, not me!


Kunle, there is no way you guys will argue this matter. Left or right, any excuses you make will only return to show you how weak and untenable is your position for "collectively condemning" tithes! There is not a single verse that condemns tithes - not one!

Your arguments and recommendations are only confirming what I have repeatedly stated.

Cheers.

My dear pilgrim.1, whilst there are lots of other extra biblical literture that says a lot more melchizedek, i chose to only refer you to the ones backed by the bible so as not to cause further arguments. However the submissions in the links i provided are theoretical. ( iam not saying they are wrong). Lets even assume going by the analogy we have read that Jesus is the same person as Melchizedek, does the one off unsolicited, uncommanded tithes of the spoils of war given to the King of salem justification for christian tithing from regular income today You see my dear no matter how you want to argue this topic, you would keep running around in circles cos it is now very clear to us that tithing as no sound scriptural basis in christian doctrine and that is why you have to come up with way off unrelated issues such as Abraham's one off tithes melchizedek to justify this unbiblical practise.

KunleOshob:
very clear to us that tithing as no sound scriptural basis in christian doctrine

oga, what have you done about sound scriptures and christian doctrines? you sure have the spirit of argument with permanent residence permit on the inside of you

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

My dear pilgrim.1, whilst there are lots of other extra biblical literture that says a lot more melchizedek, i chose to only refer you to the ones backed by the bible so as not to cause further arguments. However the submissions in the links i provided are theoretical. ( iam not saying they are wrong). Lets even assume going by the analogy we have read that Jesus is the same person as Melchizedek, does the one off unsolicited, uncommanded tithes of the spoils of war given to the King of salem justification for christian tithing from regular income today

Kunle, this is rather funny because it seems to be a circular reasoning that many people present when they have had nothing else to condemn tithes. Think about it for a moment - that so-called "one-off" tithes that Abraham gave, do you know how far it went? People who argue the way you are resorting to are too busy making such excuses that they fail to observe two very important matters:

      *  God's WORD calls it a tithe - and that is enough for me!

      *  Abraham's tithes were not casual - they affected his unborn progeny: the Levites!

Bros, excuses are too flimsy on this remarkable point. One may also make so much excuse to argue against Melchizedek's priesthood by the same idea - since it was mentioned only once in Genesis that he was the priest of the most high God!

Or, one may excuse Melchizedek's priesthood and treat it flippantly just because there is no mention anywhere of what exactly he did in his priesthood.

Thus, to keep arguing against Abraham's tithes is very immature - it blinds people to the fact that what happened in that event was far more significant than how many times we have to count his tithing, before we can be convinced that God repeatedly mentioned it in the NT no less than thrice (Hebrews 7:2, 4, 6). If God's Word would mention it 3 times in just one chapter, I think you guys should wake up and pay good attention!

KunleOshob:

You see my dear no matter how you want to argue this topic, you would keep running around in circles because it is now very clear to us that tithing as no sound scriptural basis in christian doctrine and that is why you have to come up with way off unrelated issues such as Abraham's one off tithes melchizedek to justify this unbiblical practise.

You're funny!  Who has been spinning all around every single time, other than yourself Kunle? How many excuses have you presented now to force your "collective condemnation" of tithes into Scripture and they have all been wasted? Let us even come to this frantic recommendations of websites - did they not help deflate your own arguments and rather confirm solidly the very things I had been saying about Hebrews 7:8?

You see, you would have to look for tougher excuses to come up with - ferret them anywhere from the net as please you - and when you are ready, give it your best shot to scuttle round that verse (ch. 7:, and let's see how well you survive the effort! Whatever you argue for that verse, you would still have to come back to the problems they present to you from tessellating them with other clear statements in other verses in that chapter.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob
Thus, to keep arguing against Abraham's tithes is very immature - it blinds people to the fact that what happened in that event was far more significant than how many times we have to count his tithing, before we can be convinced that God repeatedly mentioned it in the NT no less than thrice (Hebrews 7:2, 4, 6). If God's Word would mention it 3 times in just one chapter I think you guys should wake up and pay good attention!

On the contrary Paul mentioned tithes three times in one chapter and the crux of the message he was taliking about was not even tithes(or it's relevance) neither was he talking about the the priesthood of melchizedek, Paul was essentially talking about the superioirity of Jesus christ over Abraham and he used the Melchizedek/ tithes issue as an analogy. So please stop trying to force another meaning into what paul clearly explained. Sufficee to say i would remind you once again of Hebrews 7: 12 & 18. Which CONDENMED TITHES in all it's ramifications. you are yet to explain with sound biblical basis which laws/ commandements were being refered to in thoses verses. _{Don't worry i would understand if you shy away from answering the question, might be a bitter pill to swallow}

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

On the contrary Paul mentioned tithes three times in one chapter and the crux of the message he was taliking about was not even tithes(or it's relevance) neither was he talking about the the priesthood of melchizedek, Paul was essentially talking about the superioirity of Jesus christ over Abraham and he used the Melchizedek/ tithes issue as an analogy. So please stop trying to force another meaning into what paul clearly explained.

In the first place, the apostle was not comparing Jesus to Abraham, nor was he trying to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham - there just is no basis for that contrast there, because the greatness of Abraham as the father of faith to believers is never an issue throughout the Bible. No Jew or Gentile believer had an issue with Abraham, nor were they seeking to make any contrast there - having pointed that out to you several times, I hope you would wise up on it and not suffer your argument another wasted effort.

Tithes may not be the particular issue discussed in that chapter, neither is Jesus superiority over Abraham the issue there. But the fact that several times Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek was mentioned in that chapter alone should make you begin to think deeply. If Abraham's greatness in contrast to Christ's superiority was the issue, there were other issues that could have been used for that greatness. In Genesis, Abraham's greatness was demonsrated in several ways, which the NT highlights all throughout:

* in him shall all the nations of the earth be blessed

* in him was his seed to be called

* he is called the friend of God - James 2:23

* he is called the father of believers (father of us all - Rom. 4:16)

* he is the one through whom the promised blessings would come to Jews and Gentiles

These are all pointing to the greatness of Abraham - and no Jew or Gentile Christians had any issue with Abraham's greatness at all - not a sinle time! It is remarkable that some of the things outlined there above were specifically said of Abraham and no one else -

* Moses, great as he was, was never called the 'father of us all'

* the nations were not called through Moses to inherit any blessings

* it was not through Moses that the called seed was to be blessed!

Many other men of faith were great as well; but no one worried about Abraham's greatness to be a matter of being contrasted or compared to Jesus Christ's superiority! These excuses that people inject into the passage are unfounded, because they beg the question! The apostle deliberately mentioned Abraham's tithes thrice - not as a irrelevant remark, but to show us indeed in verse 8 that there is someone who receives our tithes because it is testified that He lives perpetually!

This is not injecting my own thoughts into that verse - I've been pointing it out for millenia now and all you guys have been doing is scuttling here and there and seek further untenable excuses. Sorry, bro. . you haven't started sweating yet. He receives our tithes, but He will never force it upon anyone, just as He did not ask it of Abraham by command, Law or compulsion. As He did not force it on us, so we cannot legislate to force it on anyone else. Yet, He receives them because He lives perpetually! But not so with opposers - they will try to stand in His place and legislate for Him to "collectively condemn" what he never condemned one single time! And if someone asks you guys questions, you will return with sob stories for your excuses.

KunleOshob:

Sufficee to say i would remind you once again of Hebrews 7: 12 & 18. Which CONDENMED TITHES in all it's ramifications.

Sorry, those verses did not mention tithes as being condemned - it is the excuses that have taken permanent residence visas in your mind that is causing your problems. This is why I have asked simple questions about Romans 3:39, and up until now none of your adulators have dared to take up that challenge. Shay you assume the Law is dead and buried? Sorry, the apotle said: "God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

KunleOshob:

you are yet to explain with sound biblical basis which laws/ commandements were being refered to in thoses verses. _{Don't worry i would understand if you shy away from answering the question, might be a bitter pill to swallow}

Olodo. . . how many times have I repeated myself and pointed out the answers already?

As usual no substance, just running round in circles

KunleOshob:

As usual no substance, just running round in circles

See? I knew you would have nothing more to say!

  Let's celebrate your otiose arguments o jare!

I have nothing more to say because you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in learning what the word of God says and you would rather stick to the "Gospel according to pilgrim.1" 

KunleOshob:

I have nothing more to say because you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in learning what the word of god says and you would rather stick to the "Gospel according to pilgrim.1"

Not true - the things I pointed out are still there, the questions I offered are still there: all of these issues were pointed out from the Bible and not from some desperate ferreting of websites from outside the Bible. If you had real issues instead of imagined ones, you would be setting your thoughts on Scripture rather than the excuses offered so far.

Cheers.

Tithe!

pilgrim.1:

Not true - the things I pointed out are still there, the questions I offered are still there: all of these issues were pointed out from the Bible and not from some desperate ferreting of websites from outside the Bible. If you had real issues instead of imagined ones, you would be setting your thoughts on Scripture rather than the excuses offered so far.

Cheers.

True you quoted scripture but you forced your own interpretation into it and chose to ignore clear biblical injunctions i pointed out to you.

KunleOshob:

True you quoted scripture but you forced your own interpretation into it and chose to ignore clear biblical injunctions i pointed out to you.

If at all they were my own interpretations, Kunle, how come you were never able to simply answer the questions I offered? How come you were making huge mistakes about the Law in the NT? How come you never referred to those bloopers after I pointed them out to you? Do you want us to compare notes and outline just how many instances you tripped yourself?

On the contrary i answered every question you posed thoroughly, it was you who refused to answer questions. Point out one single question i haven't addressed. To date you have refused to tell us the difference between what you consider as tithes and other offerings. Also you refused to answer my question on which law (in specific terms and with biblical evidence) was being refered to in hebrews 7: 12 & 18.