OkCornel:


And your point is what exactly? That all these were not sinful prior to the introduction of the Mosaic Laws?


This is where you are getting it wrong. Man knew what was good and evil since they ate out of that tree in the garden of eden. Which "Law of God" was given to Abel, Job, Joseph, Reuben or Abraham? Keep twisting the scriptures... you are exposing yourself further....

You want to know the law that was given to those people you mentioned? I'll first of all advice you to become born again so you can understand the language of the Bible which is spirit and only meant for the spiritual, not carnal people like you. But I'll help you out a bit.

You can't expect the Bible to spell out the laws of God before the time of Moses for you. You have to understand the Bible to know the laws existed before Moses.

All those people you mentioned believed in God or had faith in God which made them obey his laws.

Hebrews 11:14
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Job 1:1 (KJV)
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

As seen above, all the names you mentioned had faith in God. Reuben did but was wrong when he slept with Jacob his father's wife. Jacob who was also a man of faith wasn't pleased with that because he knew it was a sin. That aside.

All those men had faith in God which made them keep his laws. Joseph refused to sleep with Potipha's wife because it was a sin against God.

Genesis 39:9 King James Version (KJV)
There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

How did he know that it was a sin against God? Keep reading. What about Job? Hoe did he know that he has to eschew evil? What about Abraham, how did he know that he has to not worship idols like his father's?

All those men before the Mosaic Law came knew the laws of God because they had faith In God. It is the word of God which made them to have faith to keep God's laws. That's why the Bible says...

Romans 10:17 King James Version (KJV)
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Now, according to your point that mankind knew good and evil after eating the fruit in the garden of Eden. The law of God is now what makes them aware of what is sin.

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 3:20
for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Now how did Abel, Joseph, Job and Abraham know what sin was? They got the law of God from his word spoken to bthen just as Moses got it too but they didn't bdocument it. All of these only takes a spiritual person to understand, not a carnal being like you.

OkCornel:

If you truly understand basic english and you go through Deuteronomy 14 v 22-29; according to the Mosaic Law you are supporting, tithe is not money.

Look dude, the Bible might be translated in English, but you must know that the word of God is spirit, band so it takes a spiritually born person to understand it, not an English man.

John 6:63 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Now how many times do I have to tell you that it is the law of God I am supporting, not the name Mosaic or whatever?

How many times do I also have to tell you that tithe pre-mosaic law could be paid using anything received as an increease as done by Abraham?

How many times do you want to be told that the law changed with the priesthood, and so did your notion of tithe and agricultural produce? It simply changed to what it was before mosaic law.

OkCornel:

It is not the same thing. The Mosaic Law gave clear instructions on how tithing should be done, and not the way you think it should be done. Again I ask, where were these instructions modified or reversed in the new testament? Do you make such confessions when you tithe? (since you're in support of the Law)

How was tithing done pre-mosaic law?

OkCornel:

Fantastic! And after saying all these, where was tithing practiced outside of Jerusalem in the era of the early church? (Every biblical and historical evidence points to the fact that tithing was not practiced in the early church)

Where is it stated that the early church didn't practice tithing? Why are you concluding that they didn't when the Bible never said such? We tithe today because God never told us to stop in the new testament.

OkCornel:

Anyone who understands basic english and studies the requirement of tithing in line with the Mosaic Law clearly shows that tithing was on crops and livestock. Tithe was never money according to the Mosaic Law.

Stop using English to understand the Bible bwhich is sspiritual words.

John 6:63 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Moreover tithing was anything or any material pre-mosaic law.

OkCornel:

I challenge you to bring out the Laws of Moses and show us where money was also included as a titheable item.

Tithing as received by God was All things which included money as given by Abraham. Mosaic Law is not the final say concerning tithe, unless you want to blaspheme by saying Abraham's gave wrong tithe when he gave a tenth of ALL, and all means all.

I'm glad you couldn't challenge how I used the new Testament to show you how the parts of your list of Mosaic laws have been changed and also the ones retained.

Dude, give up.

alBHAGDADI:


You want to know the law that was given to those people you mentioned? I'll first of all advice you to become born again so you can understand the language of the Bible which is spirit and only meant for the spiritual, not carnal people like you. But I'll help you out a bit.

Yeah right, pro-tithers keep playing the born again card when their lies are exposed and they nothing sensible to say. You all keep wallowing in ignorance and keep saying the Bible is "spiritual". Whereas, the truth of God's word is not complicated and twisted with lies. Any sincere person who sees the truth knows it, and it is straightforward.

alBHAGDADI:

You can't expect the Bible to spell out the laws of God before the time of Moses for you. You have to understand the Bible to know the laws existed before Moses.

All those people you mentioned believed in God or had faith in God which made them obey his laws.
Hebrews 11:14
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Job 1:1 (KJV)
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

As seen above, all the names you mentioned had faith in God. Reuben did but was wrong when he slept with Jacob his father's wife. Jacob who was also a man of faith wasn't pleased with that because he knew it was a sin. That aside.

All those men had faith in God which made them keep his laws. Joseph refused to sleep with Potipha's wife because it was a sin against God.

Genesis 39:9 King James Version (KJV)
There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

How did he know that it was a sin against God? Keep reading. What about Job? Hoe did he know that he has to eschew evil? What about Abraham, how did he know that he has to not worship idols like his father's?

All those men before the Mosaic Law came knew the laws of God because they had faith In God. It is the word of God which made them to have faith to keep God's laws. That's why the Bible says...

Romans 10:17 King James Version (KJV)
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Like I mentioned earlier, the moment man ate out of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they knew what was right and wrong. They had the choice of doing the good things (righteousness) and shunning evil. They knew when they had committed evil just like when the moment they felt ashamed after eating out of the tree or when Cain murdered his brother and many other instances before the Mosaic Law was introduced. There was nothing like Law of God. Man was already like God, knowing what was good and evil. If you understand English and you study your Bible thoroughly, you would not be spewing all these lies and errors of "Law of God" here...

Just take a look at Genesis 3 v 22 which is a direct contradiction of your "Law of God" theory;

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

alBHAGDADI:

Now, according to your point that mankind knew good and evil after eating the fruit in the garden of Eden. The law of God is now what makes them aware of what is sin.

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 3:20
for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Now how did Abel, Joseph, Job and Abraham know what sin was? They got the law of God from his word spoken to bthen just as Moses got it too but they didn't bdocument it. All of these only takes a spiritual person to understand, not a carnal being like you.

Just look at this guy, do you read your Bible upside down? You pick verses and quote them out of context, then you later claim you are a spiritual person and I am carnal. Now let everyone look at the verses this clown is quoting out of context;

Prior to Romans 3 v 20 and Romans 4 v 15; Paul made it very clear that the Law he was referring to was the Mosaic Law, and not the nonsense "Law of God" prior to the Mosaic Law which you made up; Just look at these verses that burst your lies further;

1) The Law Paul was referring to was the Mosaic Law; Romans 2 v 17 -
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God

2) Paul made it clear that the Gentiles had no Law, however by their nature they "did things" (like I mentioned earlier, no murder, no stealing e.t.c) which were also contained in the Law, which by default was a Law for them too; Romans 3 v 12-15 -

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

alBHAGDADI:

Look dude, the Bible might be translated in English, but you must know that the word of God is spirit, band so it takes a spiritually born person to understand it, not an English man.

John 6:63 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Now how many times do I have to tell you that it is the law of God I am supporting, not the name Mosaic or whatever?

How many times do I also have to tell you that tithe pre-mosaic law could be paid using anything received as an increease as done by Abraham?

How many times do you want to be told that the law changed with the priesthood, and so did your notion of tithe and agricultural produce? It simply changed to what it was before mosaic law.



How was tithing done pre-mosaic law?



Where is it stated that the early church didn't practice tithing? Why are you concluding that they didn't when the Bible never said such? We tithe today because God never told us to stop in the new testament.





Stop using English to understand the Bible bwhich is sspiritual words.

John 6:63 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Moreover tithing was anything or any material pre-mosaic law.

See the fraud you guys are perpetrating in the church. You want everyone to tithe like Abraham did before the Mosaic Law, and yet threaten them with the devourers' curse that comes with the Mosaic Law. If you want people to tithe like Abraham did prior to the era of the Mosaic Law, therefore, tithing is not mandatory neither would be the devourer come after the non-tithers.

I wonder why Abraham's once in a lifetime tithe from warspoils should serve as a basis for Christians to part with 10% of their monthly income?

There were clear instructions given in the Mosaic Law (which was for the Children of Israel only) as regards tithing. There were also blessings and curses (which includes the devourers' curse Malachi also mentioned) that came with obeying or disobeying the Mosaic Laws as spelt out clearly in the book of Deuteronomy.

As clearly mentioned in Acts 15; Christians are not under the Mosaic Law hence, tithing or firstfruit is not mandatory, neither is anyone cursed for not doing so.

alBHAGDADI:

Tithing as received by God was All things which included money as given by Abraham. Mosaic Law is not the final say concerning tithe, unless you want to blaspheme by saying Abraham's gave wrong tithe when he gave a tenth of ALL, and all means all.

Why do you keep lying and quoting the scriptures out of context? Hebrews 7 v 4 clearly stated Abraham gave a tithe of warspoils to Melchizedek;

Hebrews 7 v 4
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Do you have difficulty understanding something so straightforward?

alBHAGDADI:

I'm glad you couldn't challenge how I used the new Testament to show you how the parts of your list of Mosaic laws have been changed and also the ones retained.

Dude, give up.

You just stirred the hornet's nest. You cherry picked out of the 613 Mosaic Laws to talk about. I would be back on this very matter. There are instructions on slavery and many other absurd things. You will show us where these were expressly abolished since you want to live by the Law that is no longer binding on Christians...

alBHAGDADI:




Oh right, the apostles told the gentiles to go ahead and have gay sex, bestial sex, worship idols, sleep with close kins, commit sorcery etc, according to you.

Yes, they told them not to obey the mosiac laws but told them to avoid idol worshiping, eating blood, which are part of the Mosaic laws, right?

Truly, they were ordered not to keep the law but it was a portion of it. Those portions were specifically changed. You won't know this unless you read the Bible very well. Now, was incest a sin before the law? No. Was cross-dressing a sin before the law came? No. But the law came and they became sin.

Now, according to your understanding of the words of the apostles, we can now cross-dress and have sex with our kin since we are no longer to obey the law.

Paul said we established the law, not dump it simply because we now have faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

We see Paul establishing the law countless times in the new testament. Below is a mosaic law which he established. The word effeminate is a man who shows of feminine characteristics, example is in dressing like a woman.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

BELOW IS PAUL establishing the law.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

I'll advice you to wear a woman's dress and also sleep with your mother tonight since the commandments against such are only contained in the mosaic law which according to you has been done away with.

I told you that the law was not discarded but changed because of a new priesthood. Now the changes were all clearly stated in the new testament e.g circumcision, animal sacrifices, diverse washings, dietary etc. Now, what happens to the ones never mentioned e.g incest, cross dressing etc? Does it mean we can now do those ones? No, those laws still stand because they never got changed. Whatever jesus christ said back then in the old testament still holds today and you can only stop following them when we see a change in the new testament. Now can you show me where such has been changed in the new testament? N you will never find because such doesn't exist.

Please don't forget to have incest sex and wear female clothes today.

Look I'm done with you. All you do is jump right into the tail end of my threads and start dragging me back to repeating all I said in the beginning.

Goodbye. My thread is not for you. Those that it is for have accepted its truth. Scoffers are free to kick.

alBHAGDADI, were these verses deleted from your Bible?

Romans 6:14
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law.


The bolded is self explanatory. Christians are not under the Law.[/quote]

OkCornel:




You just stirred the hornet's nest. You cherry picked out of the 613 Mosaic Laws to talk about. I would be back on this very matter. There are instructions on slavery and many other absurd things. You will show us where these were expressly abolished since you want to live by the Law that is no longer binding on Christians...

Sorry dude, I didn't cherry pick. You gave me few laws and I trashed you on them. Kindly accept defeat in a humble way.

Now, you want to go bring the whole 613 laws. You expect me to sit down and educate a blind bat like you by wasting my precious time?

Guy, the few I answered are enough to let you know that you lack understanding of the whole laws. Accept defeat.

The thing pain am

OkCornel:



Just look at this guy, do you read your Bible upside down? You pick verses and quote them out of context, then you later claim you are a spiritual person and I am carnal. Now let everyone look at the verses this clown is quoting out of context;

Prior to Romans 3 v 20 and Romans 4 v 15; Paul made it very clear that the Law he was referring to was the Mosaic Law, and not the nonsense "Law of God" prior to the Mosaic Law which you made up; Just look at these verses that burst your lies further;

1) The Law Paul was referring to was the Mosaic Law; Romans 2 v 17 -
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God

2) Paul made it clear that the Gentiles had no Law, however by their nature they "did things" (like I mentioned earlier, no murder, no stealing e.t.c) which were also contained in the Law, which by default was a Law for them too; Romans 3 v 12-15 -

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another


...

Don't you get it?

The Mosaic Law are just laws of God documented. This doesn't mean there was no Law of God in existence before then. Circumcision is a law of God started with Abraham. That same law is seen in the Mosaic Law.

Genesis 21:14
And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

The above shows that it was God that commanded Abraham to circumcise Isaac, yet you claim God had no law before the Mosaic law came. If Abraham who had the knowledge of good and evil had to wait for God to command him to circumcise Isaac, then it shows that that law wasn't in the knowledge of good and evil. It was simply a fleshy law God gave, which was done away by Paul and apostle of Jesus.

I repeat, the Mosaic law was just the first time God's laws were documented.

Now, when I told you that you lack the spirit of God to understand the word of God which is spirit, you doubt me and make it seem as if the Bible is like novel anyone can understand. Let me procedures how wrong you are especially with the Romans 2:12-15 you quoted to there. You quoted it to claim the gentiles knew right from wrong but you failed to understand what Paul was saying and the particular type of gentiles he was referring to.

Look at the passage again. .

Romans 2:12-15 King James Version (KJV)
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

You failed to know that the gentiles Paul was talking about are the gentiles who have received Jesus Christ. Their acceptance of Jesus Christ made them to accept a promise made by God. Look at the promise below.

Hebrews 10:16
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Now, align the above with verse 14 & 15 of Romans 2 which you quoted. You will see that the reason why the gentiles did things contained in the law without even knowing the law is because they had the Holy Spirit which they received when they accepted Jesus Christ.

Guess what Jesus Christ said Tuesday Holy Spirit will do for those who accept him?

John 14:26 King James Version (KJV)
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Holy Spirit is what made the gentiles do what they did. He made them obey the laws of Jesus without them even seeing it written down.

Guy, be born again to understand the mysteries of the Bible. It is not a comic book.

OkCornel:


alBHAGDADI, were these verses deleted from your Bible?

Romans 6:14
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law.


The bolded is self explanatory. Christians are not under the Law.

When I was screaming the it her time that you should learn to divide scripture with scripture you rubished my advice. Now look at how you quoted these beautiful verses wrongly.

When Paul said we are not under the law, he wasn't saying we should no longer obey the law. Otherwise why did he kick against bestiality, homosexuality etc which are things the law of Moses kicks against? Well, you might say they existed as wrongs even before the law of Moses. Yes they did and that's because the same God who told Moses to document them as sins also saw them as sins before Moses came. They had always been his laws before the documentation.

Now, which law was Paul saying we are no longer under? Paul was talking about the same laws of God or the Laws of Moses. He simply meant we are no longer dependent on those laws as a means to heaven because the grace of Jesus Christ which we believe in has secured heaven for us. How do I know this? I simply used scripture to divide scripture.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

As seen above, we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ, not by the works of the law. The Jews who reject Jesus are depending on the works of the law to save them, but we are saved by Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. They will end up in hell for thinking they can pass all the laws. They can't. If they pass 612, as long as they failed just one to that would have made it 613, then they will end up in hell.

James 2:10 King James Version
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

But we christians don't have such difficult because Jesus paid it all and saved us by his grace. Heaven is sure for us, but we could get punished here on Earth for disobeying God's laws. I believe I've shown you that it is not all the 613 laws we are to obey. The ones done away with have been stated in the new testament.

.Can you now see how I've divided scripture with scripture?

Only a child of God can do that because he understands the language of his Father in the Bible. A English man can't understand Chinese, but a Chinese kid will understand the language because he was born Chinese.

alBHAGDADI:


Sorry dude, I didn't cherry pick. You gave me few laws and I trashed you on them. Kindly accept defeat in a humble way.

Now, you want to go bring the whole 613 laws. You expect me to sit down and educate a blind bat like you by wasting my precious time?

Guy, the few I answered are enough to let you know that you lack understanding of the whole laws. Accept defeat.

The thing pain am

That is because you know the Mosaic Laws contained some stringent instructions that even you can not comply with. Neither can you show us where in the New Testament where these Laws were modified or abolished;

For example, are you implying that these God given instructions on marriage should still be adhered to? Where were these abolished or modified in the new testament?

128. To perform yibbum (marry the widow of one's childless brother) — Deut. 25:5
129. To perform halizah (free the widow of one's childless brother from yibbum) — Deut. 25:9
130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed (by halizah) — Deut. 25:5

Are you in tacit support of rape, provided that the rapist marries his victim?

132. The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed — Deut. 22:29
133. He is never allowed to divorce her — Deut. 22:29

Is this how you also advise a community to close out an unsolved murder case?

491. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder — Deut. 21:4
492. Not to work nor plant that river valley — Deut. 21:4


Where were these Laws modified or abolished in the New Testament since you believe the Old Testament Law applies?

alBHAGDADI:


Sorry dude, I didn't cherry pick. You gave me few laws and I trashed you on them. Kindly accept defeat in a humble way.

Now, you want to go bring the whole 613 laws. You expect me to sit down and educate a blind bat like you by wasting my precious time?

Guy, the few I answered are enough to let you know that you lack understanding of the whole laws. Accept defeat.

The thing pain am

I am still awaiting your response on where these instructions on tithing were modified or abolished...
249. To separate the "tithe for the poor" — Deut. 14:28
260. To set aside Ma'aser (tithe) each planting year and give it to a Levite — Num. 18:24
261. To set aside the second tithe (Ma'aser Sheni) — Deut. 14:22
262. Not to spend its redemption money on anything but food, drink, or ointment — Deut. 26:14
269. To read the confession of tithes every fourth and seventh year — Deut. 26:13
429. Separate the tithe from animals — Lev. 27:32
430. Not to redeem the tithe — Lev. 27:33

And if your argument is to use the example of Abraham as a model to tithe, does it mean Christians are

1) Not under any obligation to tithe,
2) Neither are they required to tithe on a regular basis as it was prior to the era of the Mosaic Law OR better still, tithe only once in their lifetime?
3) Are not under threat of the devourer if they do not tithe...

alBHAGDADI:


Don't you get it?

The Mosaic Law are just laws of God documented. This doesn't mean there was no Law of God in existence before then. Circumcision is a law of God started with Abraham. That same law is seen in the Mosaic Law.

Genesis 21:14
And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

The above shows that it was God that commanded Abraham to circumcise Isaac, yet you claim God had no law before the Mosaic law came. If Abraham who had the knowledge of good and evil had to wait for God to command him to circumcise Isaac, then it shows that that law wasn't in the knowledge of good and evil. It was simply a fleshy law God gave, which was done away by Paul and apostle of Jesus.

I repeat, the Mosaic law was just the first time God's laws were documented.

The way you interpret the scriptures is pretty nauseating! Since God also commanded Noah to build an Ark, should be also call Ark building a law of God? I just tire for this guy.

By the way, I am happy you brought up the circumcision of foreskin as an example of your supposed Laws of God before the Mosaic Law...
If indeed you call it a Law of God, why wasn't this instruction given to the likes of Enoch or Job (who lived prior to the era of the Mosaic Law) who were also close to God? After all, these guys were so close to God that they should know His Laws including circumcision of the foreskin...

alBHAGDADI:

Now, when I told you that you lack the spirit of God to understand the word of God which is spirit, you doubt me and make it seem as if the Bible is like novel anyone can understand. Let me procedures how wrong you are especially with the Romans 2:12-15 you quoted to there. You quoted it to claim the gentiles knew right from wrong but you failed to understand what Paul was saying and the particular type of gentiles he was referring to.

Look at the passage again. .

Romans 2:12-15 King James Version (KJV)
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

You failed to know that the gentiles Paul was talking about are the gentiles who have received Jesus Christ. Their acceptance of Jesus Christ made them to accept a promise made by God. Look at the promise below.


Hebrews 10:16
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Guy! Why you dey lie ontop Paul like this? Where in the scriptures did Paul mention that the Gentiles he was talking of were those that accepted Jesus? Haba?! You dubiously left out Romans 2 v 9 which clearly shows that Paul was talking about every man, and not just those who accepted Jesus... Romans 2 v 9 below says this;

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Now let me explain Romans 2 v 14-15 since you clearly do not understand what is in there.

Let's use murder as an example; When Cain murdered Abel, there was no Law spelling out Murder as a sin, but he knew he had sinned by killing Abel.

Same thing applied to Moses when he fled Egypt after killing an Egyptian task master. The Egyptians are clearly a gentile nation who needed no reference to Mosaic Laws to know killing was a criminal offence... unless you want to tell us the Egyptians also received their Laws from God as well...

alBHAGDADI:


When I was screaming the it her time that you should learn to divide scripture with scripture you rubished my advice. Now look at how you quoted these beautiful verses wrongly.

When Paul said we are not under the law, he wasn't saying we should no longer obey the law. Otherwise why did he kick against bestiality, homosexuality etc which are things the law of Moses kicks against? Well, you might say they existed as wrongs even before the law of Moses. Yes they did and that's because the same God who told Moses to document them as sins also saw them as sins before Moses came. They had always been his laws before the documentation.

Now, which law was Paul saying we are no longer under? Paul was talking about the same laws of God or the Laws of Moses. He simply meant we are no longer dependent on those laws as a means to heaven because the grace of Jesus Christ which we believe in has secured heaven for us. How do I know this? I simply used scripture to divide scripture.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

As seen above, we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ, not by the works of the law. The Jews who reject Jesus are depending on the works of the law to save them, but we are saved by Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. They will end up in hell for thinking they can pass all the laws. They can't. If they pass 612, as long as they failed just one to that would have made it 613, then they will end up in hell.

James 2:10 King James Version
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

But we christians don't have such difficult because Jesus paid it all and saved us by his grace. Heaven is sure for us, but we could get punished here on Earth for disobeying God's laws. I believe I've shown you that it is not all the 613 laws we are to obey. The ones done away with have been stated in the new testament.

.Can you now see how I've divided scripture with scripture?

Only a child of God can do that because he understands the language of his Father in the Bible. A English man can't understand Chinese, but a Chinese kid will understand the language because he was born Chinese.

Per the bolded...yeah right, the following Laws were made away with in the new testament right?

For example, are you implying that these God given instructions on marriage should still be adhered to? Where were these abolished or modified in the new testament?

128. To perform yibbum (marry the widow of one's childless brother) — Deut. 25:5
129. To perform halizah (free the widow of one's childless brother from yibbum) — Deut. 25:9
130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed (by halizah) — Deut. 25:5

Are you in tacit support of rape, provided that the rapist marries his victim?

132. The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed — Deut. 22:29
133. He is never allowed to divorce her — Deut. 22:29

Is this how you also advise a community to close out an unsolved murder case?

491. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder — Deut. 21:4
492. Not to work nor plant that river valley — Deut. 21:4

Where were these Laws on tithing modified or abolished in the New Testament?

249. To separate the "tithe for the poor" — Deut. 14:28
260. To set aside Ma'aser (tithe) each planting year and give it to a Levite — Num. 18:24
261. To set aside the second tithe (Ma'aser Sheni) — Deut. 14:22
262. Not to spend its redemption money on anything but food, drink, or ointment — Deut. 26:14
269. To read the confession of tithes every fourth and seventh year — Deut. 26:13
429. Separate the tithe from animals — Lev. 27:32
430. Not to redeem the tithe — Lev. 27:33

OkCornel:


That is because you know the Mosaic Laws contained some stringent instructions that even you can not comply with. Neither can you show us where in the New Testament where these Laws were modified or abolished;

For example, are you implying that these God given instructions on marriage should still be adhered to? Where were these abolished or modified in the new testament?

128. To perform yibbum (marry the widow of one's childless brother) — Deut. 25:5
129. To perform halizah (free the widow of one's childless brother from yibbum) — Deut. 25:9
130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed (by halizah) — Deut. 25:5

Are you in tacit support of rape, provided that the rapist marries his victim?

132. The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed — Deut. 22:29
133. He is never allowed to divorce her — Deut. 22:29

Is this how you also advise a community to close out an unsolved murder case?

491. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder — Deut. 21:4
492. Not to work nor plant that river valley — Deut. 21:4


Where were these Laws modified or abolished in the New Testament since you believe the Old Testament Law applies?

Very funny dude

So it took you almost two weeks to finally have a response which isn't even a response but more questions. You couldn't address the other posts of mine where I schooled you and showed you your errors. I don't blame you because they are too hot.

I'm glad you had no objection to the way I answered your questions on the laws and how majority of them have been changed and some upheld. You still don't want to accept defeat, that's why you have come up with another heap of laws. Shame no dey catch you.

Romans 7:3 King James Version (KJV)
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The above shows that a woman whose husband dies can decide to marry another man, not specifically her late husband's brother. If the Yibbum or whatever law you call still holds, Paul would have said she is only free to marry her late husband's brother. But no he said she is free to marry any man.


As for rape, you have allowed a satanic translation of the Bible to fool you. When we tell people to stick with the King James Version, they all think we do not know what we are saying. Now, the bible version you quoted that verse from is promoting rape which is wrong and it's all because it was wrongly translated.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Did you read the above passages from different books of the Bible? They are both the same law. None of them speak of rape, except you are reading from one of all these satanic translations which have corrupted the word of God just as he did in the garden of Eden.

While the KJV says "lay hold on her", other translations say "rape her" which is wrong. You might want to say laying hold is similar to rape, but that's wrong. When you want to make love to your wife, don't you lay hold on to her? Laying hold is part of the process of consensual sex. How do we know that the King James Version is right? If you check the parallel verse in Exodus, it says ENTICE which can also mean seduce. So if a girl is sexed after she was seduced, it fan never be termed rape because she consented to it.

The reason why the guy is to marry her after seducing and deflowering her is because back then men didn't like marrying a non-virgin. So a girl that has been deflowered will find it difficult having her own husband. To avoid that, the guy is made to marry her. But if her father doesn't like him enough to give him his daughter, then he will pay a fine.

So, clearly the passage is not about rape in any form. Don't let modern versions deceive you. Stick to the KJV.

alBHAGDADI:


Very funny dude

So it took you almost two weeks to finally have a response which isn't even a response but more questions. You couldn't address the other posts of mine where I schooled you and showed you your errors. I don't blame you because they are too hot.

Dude, you reek of low self esteem, always seeking validation where there is none. So my absence of over 10 days on Nairaland means you schooled me?

I don't think everyone on Nairaland here is as idle as you are. I am a working class person with grueling schedules especially at this time of the year where you have a lot of publicly quoted companies signing off on their accounts. But I guess that's too difficult for you to understand...because in your shallow mind you thought "you schooled me"...

Bros, you have a lot of growing up to do. The earlier you realize posting threads/comments on Nairaland does not put food on your table, the better for you.

alBHAGDADI:



As for rape, you have allowed a satanic translation of the Bible to fool you. When we tell people to stick with the King James Version, they all think we do not know what we are saying. Now, the bible version you quoted that verse from is promoting rape which is wrong and it's all because it was wrongly translated.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Did you read the above passages from different books of the Bible? They are both the same law. None of them speak of rape, except you are reading from one of all these satanic translations which have corrupted the word of God just as he did in the garden of Eden.

So, clearly the passage is not about rape in any form. Don't let modern versions deceive you. Stick to the KJV.

Dude, do you understand english at all? What is your interpretation of "lay hold on her and lie with her"?



Now look at the case of Dinah who was raped by Schechem; see how KJV puts it and tell me the difference...

Genesis 34 v 2;

And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Also look at the case of where Ammon raped Tamar, see how KJV version puts it...

2 Samuel 13 v 14;
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.



You no get case abeg...

alBHAGDADI:


Very funny dude

So it took you almost two weeks to finally have a response which isn't even a response but more questions. You couldn't address the other posts of mine where I schooled you and showed you your errors. I don't blame you because they are too hot.

I'm glad you had no objection to the way I answered your questions on the laws and how majority of them have been changed and some upheld. You still don't want to accept defeat, that's why you have come up with another heap of laws. Shame no dey catch you.

Romans 7:3 King James Version (KJV)
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The above shows that a woman whose husband dies can decide to marry another man, not specifically her late husband's brother. If the Yibbum or whatever law you call still holds, Paul would have said she is only free to marry her late husband's brother. But no he said she is free to marry any man.

Chai! This guy!! Your interpretation of the Bible is very shallow, and I am beginning to question your understanding of English Language!!!

Let me quote Romans 7 v 1-3 and put Deuteronomy 25 v 5 and 25 v 9 in perspective!

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.



First of all, a brother in-law as qualifies as another man. Which does not in any way invalidate the requirements of the Law as per Yibbum

The widow is free not to marry her brother in-law after her husband's death only if of course her brother-in-law frees her from the Yibbum.

The brother-in-law(s) have the right of first refusal before she marries elsewhere.


By the way, since you're advocating for Old Testament Laws, Polygamy should not be an issue in the church right?

OkCornel:



Guy! Why you dey lie ontop Paul like this? Where in the scriptures did Paul mention that the Gentiles he was talking of were those that accepted Jesus? Haba?! You dubiously left out Romans 2 v 9 which clearly shows that Paul was talking about every man, and not just those who accepted Jesus... Romans 2 v 9 below says this;

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Now let me explain Romans 2 v 14-15 since you clearly do not understand what is in there.

Let's use murder as an example; When Cain murdered Abel, there was no Law spelling out Murder as a sin, but he knew he had sinned by killing Abel.

Same thing applied to Moses when he fled Egypt after killing an Egyptian task master. The Egyptians are clearly a gentile nation who needed no reference to Mosaic Laws to know killing was a criminal offence... unless you want to tell us the Egyptians also received their Laws from God as well...

Didn't I show you a Bible verse that says God will write his laws in the heart of humans when Jesus comes? Since Paul spoke of the gentiles possessing that ability which only people with the holy spirit can possess, then it should be clearly to a sane mind that the gentiles Paul was speaking to were saved people already. But here you are bringing up verse 9 which bares no correlation to the the verse. Guy you have no point.

If there was no law spelling murder as sin, how come there was a punishment for it?

Genesis 4:13-15 King James Version (KJV)
And Cain said unto the L ORD , My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

I keep telling you that the Mosaic laws were just the first time God's laws were documented, but you make it seem as if God never had laws before that time. The punishment given to Cain for murder is no different from what God commanded Moses to do to murders which is to kill them. Cain knew it that's why he begged God so people won't kill him. Can you see how God's laws have always been the same?

As for Moses, who made murder an offence? God did. He convicted Cain the first murderer of his crime. Why do you think murder was henceforth seen as a crime in the whole world? The world learnt from the Cain incident. If God had not convicted Cain, do you think Cain would have been bothered that he killed Abel? Murder would have been a norm, but God pointed it out as a wrong, and from then it was seen as a wrong.

alBHAGDADI:


Very funny dude

So it took you almost two weeks to finally have a response which isn't even a response but more questions. You couldn't address the other posts of mine where I schooled you and showed you your errors. I don't blame you because they are too hot.

I'm glad you had no objection to the way I answered your questions on the laws and how majority of them have been changed and some upheld. You still don't want to accept defeat, that's why you have come up with another heap of laws. Shame no dey catch you.

Romans 7:3 King James Version (KJV)
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The above shows that a woman whose husband dies can decide to marry another man, not specifically her late husband's brother. If the Yibbum or whatever law you call still holds, Paul would have said she is only free to marry her late husband's brother. But no he said she is free to marry any man.


As for rape, you have allowed a satanic translation of the Bible to fool you. When we tell people to stick with the King James Version, they all think we do not know what we are saying. Now, the bible version you quoted that verse from is promoting rape which is wrong and it's all because it was wrongly translated.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Did you read the above passages from different books of the Bible? They are both the same law. None of them speak of rape, except you are reading from one of all these satanic translations which have corrupted the word of God just as he did in the garden of Eden.

While the KJV says "lay hold on her", other translations say "rape her" which is wrong. You might want to say laying hold is similar to rape, but that's wrong. When you want to make love to your wife, don't you lay hold on to her? Laying hold is part of the process of consensual sex. How do we know that the King James Version is right? If you check the parallel verse in Exodus, it says ENTICE which can also mean seduce. So if a girl is sexed after she was seduced, it fan never be termed rape because she consented to it.

The reason why the guy is to marry her after seducing and deflowering her is because back then men didn't like marrying a non-virgin. So a girl that has been deflowered will find it difficult having her own husband. To avoid that, the guy is made to marry her. But if her father doesn't like him enough to give him his daughter, then he will pay a fine.

So, clearly the passage is not about rape in any form. Don't let modern versions deceive you. Stick to the KJV.

By the way, I could see you quietly dodged this one as well;

Is this how you also advise a community to close out an unsolved murder case?

491. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder — Deut. 21:4
492. Not to work nor plant that river valley — Deut. 21:4

OkCornel:


Dude, do you understand english at all? What is your interpretation of "lay hold on her and lie with her"?


Now look at the case of Dinah who was raped by Schechem; see how KJV puts it and tell me the difference...

Genesis 34 v 2;

And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Also look at the case of where Ammon raped Tamar, see how KJV version puts it...

2 Samuel 13 v 14;
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.


You no get case abeg...

If you lay hold on to your shirt, does that mean you are raping your shirt? Laying hold doesn't in any way mean forcing someone. It simply means you hold.

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses

Does the above me I raped eternal life? It simply means I held it. anything more nothing less.

Schechem took Dinah and lay with her. It doesn't mean he forced her or anything, except you are misunderstanding the word defile as used in the verse. He defiled her because he slept with her without marriage, which means it will now be difficult for her to find a husband because no man in those days fancied marrying a non-virgin. That's why the Bible says she was defiled. Schechem did the necessary by agreeing to marry her, but Levi and one of his brothers killed him.

I'm even glad you quoted 2 Samuel 13. The passage clearly defines what rape is which is forcing a lady to have sex without her consent. But in the mosaic law laying hold after enticing is consensual sex. The lady got seduced and she had sex because she loved the idea.

As for Amnon and Tamar, it wasn't consensual sex, but rape. When Amnon invited her, he loved her and wanted consensual sex. But when she refused, he forced her which is rape. Notice how when he TOOK HOLD OF HER, he wanted the sex to be consensual which is why he asked her to lay with him. But when she refused, he forced her which is rape. She didn't want to have sex with him because it will defile her. In order to prevent that she advised her seek permission from the king.

2 Samuel 13 King James Version (KJV)
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her.
And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her.
But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David's brother: and Jonadab was a very subtil man.
And he said unto him, Why art thou, being the king's son, lean from day to day? wilt thou not tell me? And Amnon said unto him, I love Tamar, my brother Absalom's sister.
And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself sick: and when thy father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, and give me meat, and dress the meat in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it at her hand.
So Amnon lay down, and made himself sick: and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand.
Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon's house, and dress him meat.
So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes.
And she took a pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him.
And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother.
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.
And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.

Your misunderstanding of this passage is clearly making you say God supported rape in time past. You even make it worse by saying he also said the victim should marry the rapist. What an insult. Stay off modern Bible versions, they will confuse you.

OkCornel:


By the way, I could see you quietly dodged this one as well;

Is this how you also advise a community to close out an unsolved murder case?

491. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder — Deut. 21:4
492. Not to work nor plant that river valley — Deut. 21:4

You know too well that such cases today are handled by police and the court of law, unlike before when God's people had judges and elders.

Deuteronomy 21 King James Version (KJV)
If one be found slain in the land which the
L ORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:
Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain:

OkCornel:


Chai! This guy!! Your interpretation of the Bible is very shallow, and I am beginning to question your understanding of English Language!!!

Let me quote Romans 7 v 1-3 and put Deuteronomy 25 v 5 and 25 v 9 in perspective!

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.



First of all, a brother in-law as qualifies as another man. Which does not in any way invalidate the requirements of the Law as per Yibbum

The widow is free not to marry her brother in-law after her husband's death only if of course her brother-in-law frees her from the Yibbum.

The brother-in-law(s) have the right of first refusal before she marries elsewhere.


By the way, since you're advocating for Old Testament Laws, Polygamy should not be an issue in the church right?

Why do you foolishly like back and forth argument? Didn't I just quote Paul saying a woman can marry another man once her husband dies? Where did Paul say she has to take permission from her late husband's brother before she remarries? Paul clearly changed your Yibbum law. If the Yibbum law stands, then a case where her late husband's brother Is already married will go against Jesus law against polygamy.

Matthew 19:5 King James Version (KJV)
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Notice how Jesus didn't say the three of them will become one flesh. He said the two of them i.e husband and wife will become one flesh. This shows that the law on polygamy got changed in the new testament

OkCornel:


Dude, you reek of low self esteem, always seeking validation where there is none. So my absence of over 10 days on Nairaland means you schooled me?

I don't think everyone on Nairaland here is as idle as you are. I am a working class person with grueling schedules especially at this time of the year where you have a lot of publicly quoted companies signing off on their accounts. But I guess that's too difficult for you to understand...because in your shallow mind you thought "you schooled me"...

Bros, you have a lot of growing up to do. The earlier you realize posting threads/comments on Nairaland does not put food on your table, the better for you.

Liar. You were online on the 27th, I checked your last seen.

So other people don't have schedules because you are the only busy human on Earth. Who cares about your company routine? Why tell me?

I've been schooling you so far on this thread and others. I don't care if you admit it or not, but sane minds can see how you keep heaping questions upon questions as soon as I answer each of them. You keep heaping more hoping to catch me but all to no avail because I answer them with the Bible. All your questions on the laws I've answered.

I don't see where I stated that my posting on Nairaland is for me to have food on my table. It I'd actually for me to score points for rewards in heaven for doing God's work. I preach the gospel of salvation and others, yet I wonder why an UNBELIEVER like you is bothered.

I will never get tired of spreading the teachings of God. The earlier you kill yourself over it the better

There is no more need for Christians to keep any of those Laws again after faith has come,that is why Paul said Faith is what we need to gain Salvation and not the WORKS of the LAW! Romans 3:20 Galatians 3:1-10
Where you got confused is misconstruing PRINCIPLES for LAWS!
Christianity is based on principles no more on laws.
Even the tithe issue that you cited can't be found in the Ten commandments but in the remaining 700 laws,the Apostles told the early Christians 'we are not asking you to go on keeping all those laws but these necessary PRINCIPLE' Act 15:28,29
So Christians have NOTHING to do with any of the Mosaic laws, because all those laws have been nailed with Christ! Jesus is the WORD of God, definitely all those laws must have reached Moses through the WORD! John 1:1
There was no laws until after the Israelites crossed the red sea, yet Joseph before then lived by Godly principle! Genesis 39:9
If Jesus is the word, undoubtedly he will know
¤What brought about those laws?
¤Why there was nothing as such before then?
¤Why some were declared righteous BEFORE the Law?
¤The principle that supersedes all those laws?
So by closely studying Jesus' thoughts, words and actions,and trying hard to imitate him, we'll be able to live by the needed principles and since we're ready to keep seeing Jesus as our model God will forgive us whenever we make mistakes due to our imperfect state. When you are a toddler your mum will tell you 'you must take your bath first thing in the morning,you must brush your teeth,you must change your cloth,you must clean your hands before and after meals,you must flush and wash your hands after poo' all of these are laws that may make you look at her as too strict on you back then,but today you fully understood the PRINCIPLES behind those laws and you can explain better than when you were a toddler.
Well that is what Christianity could mean for you!
Courtesy Jehovah's Witnesses explanation!

Maximus69:
There is no more need for Christians to keep any of those Laws again after faith has come,that is why Paul said Faith is what we need to gain Salvation and not the WORKS of the LAW! Romans 3:20 Galatians 3:1-10
Where you got confused is misconstruing PRINCIPLES for LAWS!
Christianity is based on principles no more on laws.
Even the tithe issue that you cited can't be found in the Ten commandments but in the remaining 700 laws,the Apostles told the early Christians 'we are not asking you to go on keeping all those laws but these necessary PRINCIPLE' Act 15:28,29
So Christians have NOTHING to do with any of the Mosaic laws, because all those laws have been nailed with Christ! Jesus is the WORD of God, definitely all those laws must have reached Moses through the WORD! John 1:1
There was no laws until after the Israelites crossed the red sea, yet Joseph before then lived by Godly principle! Genesis 39:9
If Jesus is the word, undoubtedly he will know
¤What brought about those laws?
¤Why there was nothing as such before then?
¤Why some were declared righteous BEFORE the Law?
¤The principle that supersedes all those laws?
So by closely studying Jesus' thoughts, words and actions,and trying hard to imitate him, we'll be able to live by the needed principles and since we're ready to keep seeing Jesus as our model God will forgive us whenever we make mistakes due to our imperfect state. When you are a toddler your mum will tell you 'you must take your bath first thing in the morning,you must brush your teeth,you must change your cloth,you must clean your hands before and after meals,you must flush and wash your hands after poo' all of these are laws that may make you look at her as too strict on you back then,but today you fully understood the PRINCIPLES behind those laws and you can explain better than when you were a toddler.
Well that is what Christianity could mean for you!
Courtesy Jehovah's Witnesses explanation!

Thanks for this apt submission my brother. If you check the exchanges I've been having with the ignorant OP... he still thinks Christians are required to obey the Law, when Acts 15 provides a lot of clarity on the matter. He dubiously left that out of his original post on this thread thinking he is dealing with brainwashed people here...

All these heresies he's typing here is to tacitly justify tithes and first fruits in Christianity; whereas...he cannot give one example where Christians were required to do so or where Christians practiced tithing and first fruits to avoid the devourer...

I wonder how one will be so ignorant, stubborn and choose to settle for lies when the truth is just too obvious for everyone to see...

Romans 13: 8-10 Do not OWE ANYTHING to anyone EXCEPT to LOVE one ANOTHER; for whoever loves his FELLOW man has FULFILLED the LAW. 9 For the LAW CODE, “You must not commit adultery, you must not murder, you must not steal, you must not covet,” and WHATEVER OTHER COMMANDMENT THERE IS, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; Therefore, love is the LAW’S FULFILLMENT

What do WE OWE one ANOTHER that could be BIGGER THAN LOVE? If you know you know.

I had the opportunity of taking a look at the OPENING account for this thread, all I could do is bring it down to is, WHAT DID JESUS CHRIST OWE US if he ever OWE US THOUGH? LOVE! We can be ZEALOUS for all things LAW like PAUL once WAS but what did Christ OWE him LOVE. What did PAUL OWE CHRIST and his FELLOW brothers in RETURN, LOVE.

1 Corinthians 15: 9-11. For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God. 10 But by GOD’S UNDESERVED kindness I am WHAT I AM. And his UNDESERVED KINDNESS to me was not in vain, but I labored more than all of them; yet it was not I, but the undeserved kindness of God that is with me.

alBHAGDADI:


If you lay hold on to your shirt, does that mean you are raping your shirt? Laying hold doesn't in any way mean forcing someone. It simply means you hold.

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses

Does the above me I raped eternal life? It simply means I held it. anything more nothing less.

Schechem took Dinah and lay with her. It doesn't mean he forced her or anything, except you are misunderstanding the word defile as used in the verse. He defiled her because he slept with her without marriage, which means it will now be difficult for her to find a husband because no man in those days fancied marrying a non-virgin. That's why the Bible says she was defiled. Schechem did the necessary by agreeing to marry her, but Levi and one of his brothers killed him. I'm even glad you quoted 2 Samuel 13. The passage clearly defines what rape is which is forcing a lady to have sex without her consent. But in the mosaic law laying hold after enticing is consensual sex. The lady got seduced and she had sex because she loved the idea.

Now I know your daftness is the stuff of legends. How can one have so much ignorance resident in his skull just to defend a lie?

Look at the Hebrew word from which "To lay hold of" was used in the context. The root word is Taphas. One word can have different meanings and it depends in the context in which it is used. But then again, you are only confirming my initial claims that you have a very poor understanding of English;

TAPHAS
The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Definition
1. (Qal)
(a) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
(b) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skillfully
2. (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
3. (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/taphas.html

Now tell us how those words interpreted directly in English from Hebrew does not translate into forcibly having sex with a virgin against her wish using Dinah, Tamar and the instructions in the Law as per Deuteronomy 22 v 28-29.

I am also surprised on how you were conveniently blind to these obvious fact in the scriptures;

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

alBHAGDADI, how could you be so blind that you did not see Deuteronomy 22 v 29 saying that the victim was humbled by her captor? If this was a case of consensual sex, why did the scriptures conclude that the maiden is humbled after that incident?









Chai, this is really amusing, so someone will read the story of Dinah and Schechem in the Bible and conclude that Schechem did not rape Dinar?

Even after Simeon and Levi replied these words to Jacob after they had taken their revenge;

Genesis 34 v 30 - 31;

30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me, and made me [t]stink among the inhabitants of the land, as well the Canaanites, as the Perizzites, and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me, and so shall I, and my house be destroyed.

31 And they answered, Should he abuse our sister as a whor.e?


Better still, let me bring out KJV which you stick to;

30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.

31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

achorladey:
Romans 13: 8-10 Do not OWE ANYTHING to anyone EXCEPT to LOVE one ANOTHER; for whoever loves his FELLOW man has FULFILLED the LAW. 9 For the LAW CODE, “You must not commit adultery, you must not murder, you must not steal, you must not covet,” and WHATEVER OTHER COMMANDMENT THERE IS, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; Therefore, love is the LAW’S FULFILLMENT

What do WE OWE one ANOTHER that could be BIGGER THAN LOVE? If you know you know.

I had the opportunity of taking a look at the OPENING account for this thread, all I could do is bring it down to is, WHAT DID JESUS CHRIST OWE US if he ever OWE US THOUGH? LOVE! We can be ZEALOUS for all things LAW like PAUL once WAS but what did Christ OWE him LOVE. What did PAUL OWE CHRIST and his FELLOW brothers in RETURN, LOVE.

1 Corinthians 15: 9-11. For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God. 10 But by GOD’S UNDESERVED kindness I am WHAT I AM. And his UNDESERVED KINDNESS to me was not in vain, but I labored more than all of them; yet it was not I, but the undeserved kindness of God that is with me.

God bless you, please keep bringing out those scriptures.

alBHAGDADI is obviously blind to those verses. Just wait for him to accuse you that you're using the wrong version of the Bible, or you do not understand what those scriptures are talking about...

OkCornel:


Now I know your daftness is the stuff of legends. How can one have so much ignorance resident in his skull just to defend a lie?

Look at the Hebrew word from which "To lay hold of" was used in the context. The root word is Taphas. One word can have different meanings and it depends in the context in which it is used. But then again, you are only confirming my initial claims that you have a very poor understanding of English;

TAPHAS
The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Definition
1. (Qal)
(a) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
(b) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skillfully
2. (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
3. (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/taphas.html

Now tell us how those words interpreted directly in English from Hebrew does not translate into forcibly having sex with a virgin against her wish using Dinah, Tamar and the instructions in the Law as per Deuteronomy 22 v 28-29.

I am also surprised on how you were conveniently blind to these obvious fact in the scriptures;

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

alBHAGDADI, how could you be so blind that you did not see Deuteronomy 22 v 29 saying that the victim was humbled by her captor? If this was a case of consensual sex, why did the scriptures conclude that the maiden is humbled after that incident?









Chai, this is really amusing, so someone will read the story of Dinah and Schechem in the Bible and conclude that Schechem did not rape Dinar?

Even after Simeon and Levi replied these words to Jacob after they had taken their revenge;

Genesis 34 v 30 - 31;

30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me, and made me [t]stink among the inhabitants of the land, as well the Canaanites, as the Perizzites, and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me, and so shall I, and my house be destroyed.

31 And they answered, Should he abuse our sister as a whor.e?


Better still, let me bring out KJV which you stick to;

30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.

31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

. Do you and I speak Hebrew?

Do you know what you are trying to say when you allow yourself to believe lay hold means rape? It means you are saying God supports rape and that he's an unrighteous God for even saying that a victim should married her rapist. Well, the God of the Bible is a righteous God who makes good judgement. Maybe your own god is unrighteous.

I even showed you a parallel verse which says it is only when the lady is enticed... but you still believe lay hold means rape. Then God supports rape according to your foul understanding.

You can continue believing junk NIV, ESV and other modern translations. That's your cup of tea, enjoy the error.

You have misunderstood Levi and Someone's words. They never said Schechem raped Dinah. Stop putting words into their mouth. They only got mad that he defiled their sister i.e he had sex with her out of wedlock which is what men do to who.res and harl.ots.

Or are you saying sex with a harlo.t is rape?

Just kindly and boldly state it that you are saying God supported rape, instead of fooling around. Mind you, you lack the Holy Spirit and have also been deceived by a satanic translation of the Bible, that's why you are boldly arguing that God supported rape. What a shame.

Maximus69:
There is no more need for Christians to keep any of those Laws again after faith has come,that is why Paul said Faith is what we need to gain Salvation and not the WORKS of the LAW! Romans 3:20 Galatians 3:1-10
Where you got confused is misconstruing PRINCIPLES for LAWS!
Christianity is based on principles no more on laws.
Even the tithe issue that you cited can't be found in the Ten commandments but in the remaining 700 laws,the Apostles told the early Christians 'we are not asking you to go on keeping all those laws but these necessary PRINCIPLE' Act 15:28,29
So Christians have NOTHING to do with any of the Mosaic laws, because all those laws have been nailed with Christ! Jesus is the WORD of God, definitely all those laws must have reached Moses through the WORD! John 1:1
There was no laws until after the Israelites crossed the red sea, yet Joseph before then lived by Godly principle! Genesis 39:9
If Jesus is the word, undoubtedly he will know
¤What brought about those laws?
¤Why there was nothing as such before then?
¤Why some were declared righteous BEFORE the Law?
¤The principle that supersedes all those laws?
So by closely studying Jesus' thoughts, words and actions,and trying hard to imitate him, we'll be able to live by the needed principles and since we're ready to keep seeing Jesus as our model God will forgive us whenever we make mistakes due to our imperfect state. When you are a toddler your mum will tell you 'you must take your bath first thing in the morning,you must brush your teeth,you must change your cloth,you must clean your hands before and after meals,you must flush and wash your hands after poo' all of these are laws that may make you look at her as too strict on you back then,but today you fully understood the PRINCIPLES behind those laws and you can explain better than when you were a toddler.
Well that is what Christianity could mean for you!
Courtesy Jehovah's Witnesses explanation!

Since you are not to live by the laws anymore because Jesus Christ was mailed to the cross, then go ahead and sleep with your father, mother, sister, daughter. Also make graven images and now down to them. Dont forget to also wear female clothes.

You are some big confused fellow to have brought an explanation from Jehovah's witnesses who deny Jesus is God and say he's an angel. If Paul truly meant it how Jehovah's witnesses explain it, then there is no more sin since we are no longer to obey the law.

Guy, go and continue swallowing Jehovah's False Witness junks and vamoose from this thread.

alBHAGDADI:


You know too well that such cases today are handled by police and the court of law, unlike before when God's people had judges and elders.

Deuteronomy 21 King James Version (KJV)
If one be found slain in the land which the
L ORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:
Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain:

This guy, you are just an artful dodger. So you mean to tell us that there are no Christian communities in the entire world without aged and well respected people acting as elders in such communities?

Why did you stop short at Deuteronomy 21 v 2? This keeps on validating my claims that you quote the scriptures dubiously. I will do the honors of posting the remaining part of that passage;

3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke;

4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley:

5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:

6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley:

7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.

8 Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.








I will be waiting for you to use "the Priests the sons of Levi" as your excuse why this cannot be practiced in a Christian community; whereas you earlier claimed on another thread that the Pastors of today are the "Spiritual Levites" ...


By the way, where was this Law abolished or modified in the New Testament? since Christians are no longer practicing this... or you are saying it is now convenient to disobey these God given instructions?

achorladey:
Romans 13: 8-10 Do not OWE ANYTHING to anyone EXCEPT to LOVE one ANOTHER; for whoever loves his FELLOW man has FULFILLED the LAW. 9 For the LAW CODE, “You must not commit adultery, you must not murder, you must not steal, you must not covet,” and WHATEVER OTHER COMMANDMENT THERE IS, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; Therefore, love is the LAW’S FULFILLMENT

What do WE OWE one ANOTHER that could be BIGGER THAN LOVE? If you know you know.

I had the opportunity of taking a look at the OPENING account for this thread, all I could do is bring it down to is, WHAT DID JESUS CHRIST OWE US if he ever OWE US THOUGH? LOVE! We can be ZEALOUS for all things LAW like PAUL once WAS but what did Christ OWE him LOVE. What did PAUL OWE CHRIST and his FELLOW brothers in RETURN, LOVE.

1 Corinthians 15: 9-11. For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God. 10 But by GOD’S UNDESERVED kindness I am WHAT I AM. And his UNDESERVED KINDNESS to me was not in vain, but I labored more than all of them; yet it was not I, but the undeserved kindness of God that is with me.

You guys just seem to amaze me everyday. So because the law is summed up in love, we should just kick the laws away right?

Your write-up says we owe Jesus love. If we owe him love, then we keep his commandments.

John 14:15 (KJV)
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

What are his commandments? They are there in the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. But you say we should throw them away and just love. We can't claim to love Jesus when we disobey his commandments. We can't even love one another because the way to do that lie in the commandments.

alBHAGDADI:


Since you are not to live by the laws anymore because Jesus Christ was mailed to the cross, then go ahead and sleep with your father, mother, sister, daughter. Also make graven images and now down to them. Dont forget to also wear female clothes.

You are some big confused fellow to have brought an explanation from Jehovah's witnesses who deny Jesus is God and say he's an angel. If Paul truly meant it how Jehovah's witnesses explain it, then there is no more sin since we are no longer to obey the law.

Guy, go and continue swallowing Jehovah's False Witness junks and vamoose from this thread.

You keep spewing this trash as though incest was a taboo because the Mosaic Law clearly mentioned it. Apart from the in-breeding that occurred (i.e. Cain and Seth sleeping with their sisters or Abraham that married his half sister Sarah), where else was it written that Adam slept with his daughter? or Eve slept with her sons? Are you okay at all?


And before you rush to use Lot as an example of a man that slept with his daughters, Lot acted under the influence of alcohol and would not have slept with his daughters if he was not intoxicated!

How would you also explain the fact that incest has also been a taboo in some if not most of ancient African communities prior to the introduction of the Bible/Chrisitianity to Africa? Did these communities also consult the Mosaic Law as well?

OkCornel:


This guy, you are just an artful dodger. So you mean to tell us that there are no Christian communities in the entire world without aged and well respected people acting as elders in such communities?

Why did you stop short at Deuteronomy 21 v 2? This keeps on validating my claims that you quote the scriptures dubiously. I will do the honors of posting the remaining part of that passage;

3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke;

4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley:

5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:

6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley:

7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.

8 Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.








I will be waiting for you to use "the Priests the sons of Levi" as your excuse why this cannot be practiced in a Christian community; whereas you earlier claimed on another thread that the Pastors of today are the "Spiritual Levites" ...


By the way, where was this Law abolished or modified in the New Testament? since Christians are no longer practicing this... or you are saying it is now convenient to disobey these God given instructions?

Na wah for you.

Why should Christians have to be the ones solving the matter of every dead body found in a neighborhood which isn't even a Christian dominated one not to talk of it being totally theirs?

The passage you quoted was speaking about a community where God's people are actually in charge. Which community in Nigeria has Christians in charge with their doctrines reigning supreme? You can't even find such in the world. Yet you say when there's a dead body somewhere, Christians should just gather themselves and start performing Old Testament rights . Na who get dead body?

alBHAGDADI:

. Do you and I speak Hebrew?

Do you still have a functioning mental faculty? Search for the Hebrew Bible and see the word that was used in that verse. Then check out the meaning of those words and apply them in context!

Just see how you are making a mess of yourself revelling in ignorance! chai!

alBHAGDADI:

Do you know what you are trying to say when you allow yourself to believe lay hold means rape? It means you are saying God supports rape and that he's an unrighteous God for even saying that a victim should married her rapist. Well, the God of the Bible is a righteous God who makes good judgement. Maybe your own god is unrighteous.

I even showed you a parallel verse which says it is only when the lady is enticed... but you still believe lay hold means rape. Then God supports rape according to your foul understanding.

You can continue believing junk NIV, ESV and other modern translations. That's your cup of tea, enjoy the error.

You have misunderstood Levi and Someone's words. They never said Schechem raped Dinah. Stop putting words into their mouth. They only got mad that he defiled their sister i.e he had sex with her out of wedlock which is what men do to who.res and harl.ots.

Or are you saying sex with a harlo.t is rape?

Just kindly and boldly state it that you are saying God supported rape, instead of fooling around. Mind you, you lack the Holy Spirit and have also been deceived by a satanic translation of the Bible, that's why you are boldly arguing that God supported rape. What a shame.

Context alBHAGDADI! context! If you really studied english in school, you will realize a word or phrase can have different meanings and it depends on the context in which they are used!

You are so blind! The Law remains the Law! no sugar coating it. if you are not blind; read Deuteronomy 22 v 28-29 again!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

alBHAGDADI, how could you be so blind that you did not see Deuteronomy 22 v 29 saying that the victim was humbled by her captor? If this was a case of consensual sex, why did the scriptures conclude that the maiden is humbled after that incident?