Darling KunleOshob,

I don't think it is fair that you accuse your sweetie in public like this. Haba, if we get kwanta, can't we hug and sort it out behind the curtains? I really would have loved to once again succumb to your 'oga-ship', but it seems this 'ship' is carrying us to somewhere of unstable currents.

Okay, with all due respects, let me point out a few things, okay?

KunleOshob:

On the contrary i answered every question you posed thoroughly, it was you who refused to answer questions.

I hear. No vex. I disagree, though - but for Barrack Obama's sake, make i chill.

KunleOshob:

Point out one single question i haven't addressed.

Dem dey there, but again I go chill.

KunleOshob:

To date you have refused to tell us the difference between what you consider as tithes and other offerings.

I was going to do so, after answering sleekymag's questions in detail. Initially I had wanted to refrain from posting my reasons for tithing because I sourced early that, rather than discuss them, opposers would just dismiss and attack them without reflection. I went ahead and did so - and in due course I shall post them.

KunleOshob:

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.

Again, I for chill here. But to help you see that these allegations you often throw at me are quite often unfounded, let me point out just this single case.

It is not true that I refused to answer that question, Kunle. Please see for yourself:
[list]

(c) The Law you are referring to here is the very same one that the people received under the Levitical priesthood according to verse 11 -

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,
(for under it the people received the law,)
what further need was there that another priest should rise
after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Now as such, you cannot assume that Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek fell under the Levitical order to pressume therefore that with the change of the Levitical priesthood, therefore the "law" has been changed and woosh! - no tithes! That is not what that chapter says at all.

(d) The tithes of Abraham to Melchizedek (verses 2, 4, 6) were never once based on any Law! Never!!!!!!!! It is for this reason that verse 8 makes clear that here men who die receive tithes - but THERE He receives them of whom it is testified that He LIVES PERPETUALLY!! How clear could that be, Kunle? Are you going to deny that very verse and allege that "no, he does not live perpetually and so does not receive them"?

[/list]

At least, you can see that I answered that question - and there is just no basis to allege that I refused to answer it. Besides, I have answered that same question repeatedly from others who used them as the basis for their arguments. The same thing about the several questions you alleged I never answered on Hebrews 7 - I answered them, discussed them in detail and never once ran to any website to ferret ideas for my answers! The questions I raised there were glibly ignored by you, only to come back and allege these things against me.

No worries, though - I still love you all the same.

@pilgrim.1
The post you refered to does not answer the question. I would repeat the question again here: which law in specifc terms(with bibical evidence) was being refered to in Hebrews 7: 12 & 18. You have to be specific about the exact law bieng refere to here Your arguement that the one off tithes of mechizedek(which was not recomended as christian doctrine) was not based on law does not even attempt to answer the question.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

@pilgrim.1
The post you refered to does not answer the question. I would repeat the question again here: which law in specifc terms(with bibical evidence) was being refered to in Hebrews 7: 12 & 18. You have to be specific about the exact law bieng refere to here Your arguement that the one off tithes of mechizedek(which was not recomended as christian doctrine) was not based on law does not even attempt to answer the question.

There are two things to highlight in yours:

1. The Melchizedek case

2. The Law in question.

First, the Melchizedek case: to say it is not a Christian doctrine is to argue as if it is not in Hebrews 7:8. I kept asking several times: WHO is He that receives tithes on the fact that it is testified He lives perpetually? If it was not a Christian doctrine, would such a fact be stated in that verse as lucidly as we have seen? Rather than excuse the fact, what substance have you really provided thereto?

Second, the "Law" in question - that law was the one received under the Levitical priesthood. In that Law, there was "a commandment" (remember, "a commandment" of Levi to take tithes "according to the Law". That Law received under the Levitical priesthood was being set aside, but does that necessarily condemn tithes? No.

The reasons why the Levitical priesthood and law did not negate tithes are these:

     ●  the levitical priesthood appertained to Judaism

     ●  the old covenant operated under the Levitical priesthood

     ●  the Levitical priesthood only affected the law given under it

     ●  the Levitical priesthood and law did not supercede the priesthood of Melchizedek

     ●  before the birth of Levi, the priethood of Melchizedek was divinely recognized

     ●  what the Levitical priesthood did not originate, it cannot nullify

     ●  even Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham

     ●  there was no Law upon which tithes was forced upon Abraham

     ●  Abraham did not need a Law, but a priethood - that of Melchizedek

     ●  those who recognize this principle understand what Heb. 7:8 states

     ●  the basis of the priesthood of Melchizedek was not the Levitical Law

     ●  the basis of the Melchizedek priesthood is the power of an endless life

     ●  it is on that basis (as above) that Hebrews 7:8 speaks of tithes in the NT

     ●  the Levitical priesthood and law do not condemn Hebrews 7:8

     ●  to argue that the setting aside of the levitical law is to condemn tithes,
         is to be deliberately dishonest with Hebrews 7:8 ---
         'but there he receiveth them, of whom
          it is witnessed that he liveth"

     ●  Judaism does not negate the Melchizedek priesthood

     ●  Judaism does not affect the Melchizedek priesthood

     ●  Judaism does not affect the "power of an endless life"

     ●  Judaism does not condemn tithes

     ●  Judaism was set aside, but not the priesthood of Melchizedek

     ●  Judaism did not remove the principle of "the Law" (Rom. 3:31)

     ●  Judaism does not deny Hebrews 7:8

     ●  Judaism does not condemn what it did not originate

     ●  Judaism does not legislate over the Melchizedek priesthood


All these are pointing to one thing: the Law that the people received under the Levitical priesthood does not condemn tithes, Kunle. In the first place, I have said so many times that I do not base my reasons for tithing on the Levitical law - every single time I mentioned this, you guys got stuck on the Levitical priethood and never saw the case of Hebrews 7:8. That verse tells us that He who receives tithes does not do so on the basis of a Law, but rather because He lives perpetually!!

Hebrews 7:8 does not argue tithes being received 'THERE' on the basis of any Law - please go and see. You can mangle the law received under the Levitical priesthood and even the entire Jewish system as best please you - but brother, remember one thing constantly:

                "but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth"

It never said that He receives them because of "a commandment according to the Law" - but rather:

     ●  He receives them on the basis of His living perpetually!

     ●  He receives them on the basis of LIFE, not Law!

     ●  He receives them on the basis of an unchangeable priesthood!

     ●  He receives them because of WHO He is, not because of a religion!

     ●  He receives them because of what is testified of HIM!

     ●  He receives them because He preceded the whole system of Levi!

     ●  He receives them because NOTHING replaces HIM!

     ●  He receives them because He is greater than the old covevant!

     ●  He receives them because He is not from the Levitical lineage!

     ●  He receives them because He continueth ever!

I have said so many times: my persuasions to tithe are not based on Law received under the Levitical priesthood; but since that is where all your hopes are settled, sorry - you missed it by a million miles!

Everytime you argue tithes and try to condemn it, just think about the very Person in Hebrews 7:8 that you are seeking to condemn! That verse says without question that He receives tithes because He lives perpetually!

Regards.

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob,
Everytime you argue tithes and try to condemn it, just think about the very Person in Hebrews 7:8 that you are seeking to condemn! That verse says without question that He receives tithes because He lives perpetually

Regards.

Hebrews7:8 refered to Melchizedek and the bible tells us that melchizedek lives perpetually. I also won't allow you to get away with your slight manipulation of scripture highlighted above. The word used was receiveth(past tense) and not receives.

All said and done you have failed again to show us were it was directed, instructed,implied or even suggested that christians should pay tithes based on Melchizedek priesthood or Abraham's free will offering of a one off tithe of the spoil of war that wasn't even his property in he first place.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

All said and done you have failed again to show us were it was directed, instructed,implied or even suggested that christians should pay tithes based on Melchizedek priesthood or Abraham's free will offering of a one off tithe of the spoil of war that wasn't even his property in he first place.

Nor have you been able to show where God asked you to legislate for Him in condemning what He never at any time (OT or NT) condemned! He never condemned it, and to try to do so for Him is dishonest, Kunle. The argument based on using the levitical priesthood to condemn tithes is dishonest - as the mention of tithes in Hebrews 7 was never based on the Law - go and find me the one place where Abraham's tithes and Levites tithes to Melchizedek was based on any Law.

KunleOshob:

Hebrews7:8 refered to Melchizedek and the bible tells us that melchizedek lives perpetually.

That brings us back to the question: how many high priests do you have in the new covenant, Kunle?

KunleOshob:

I also won't allow you to get away with your slight manipulation of scripture highlighted above. The word used was receiveth(past tense) and not receives.

I am sorry for you, my dear. Are you so vacant of the fact of what the Greek text say? It is not "my" manipulation, as I never translated any version of the Bible. But let me show you 3 things:

(a) the Elizabethan English word "receiveth" does not point only to the past in tenses - it could also point to the future and a present continuous.

(b) other English version there on that verse show that it is a present continuous tense: He receives them.

(c) the Greek text does not use the word "receive", so you cannot argue that "the word used was receiveth(past tense)" - which is quite dishonest. You're assuming it so, and forcing your miscalculations into that verse because you wanted it to read as such.

With the case of (c) above, let me point you to something intrinsic here: the versions that use the word or term either do so with --

    ●   "receives" - NASB, NKJV, Weymouth,

    ●   "receiveth" - KJV,

    ●   "are received" (not "were received"  -- AMP, NCV,

Most other versions are just silent: NIV, NLT, ESV, CEV, ASV, YLT, Darby, HCSB, RV, - the reason being that the Greek text does not use your "receiveth" in that verse.

I pointed out the basis of tithes in the NT using versions which apply the the term "receiveth" or "receives" - and my reason for doing so are as earlier outlined:

         --  tithes are not based on the Law, the Law only incorporated it

         --  tithes are not based on ceremonies, but rather on LIFE

That is why the contrast is between "men who die" and the One who lives perpetually. It was not a "law" that Abraham saw, but the intrinsic principle of a never ending life!

Even "men who die" (the Levites) paid tithes to the One who lives perpetually! The question is simple: who is the One who lives perpetually in Hebrews 7:8 - if you say it was Melchizedek, I've been trying to find out if Melchizedek is equated to the Son of God (verse 3). If it does make that equation, then again, we would have to answer these necessary questions:

          -- how many highpriests do we have today?

          -- who is He that "continueth ever" according to v. 24-25?

          -- where is it testified that He lives perpetually?

That verse says that it is testified of Him that He lives perpetually - I would like to know where in Scripture we can find that testimony!! Please share and let's resolve this issue.

If you're not clear, please ask - and I shall point you to what exactly the Greek texts say on that verse - so we can see if your assertion that "word used was receiveth(past tense)" is based on any clue of your knowledge of the verse.

Shalom.

Just to show you that I wasn't kidding:

pilgrim.1:

(a) the Elizabethan English word "receiveth" does not point only to the past in tenses - it could also point to the future and a present continuous.

Let me show you a few examples in the KJV:

       ●   Matthew 7:8 -- For every one that asketh receiveth

       ●   Matt. 10:40  -- He that receiveth you receiveth me,
            and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

       ●   Matt. 18:5 -- And whoso shall receive one such little child
            in my name receiveth me.

       ●   1 Cor. 2:14 -- But the natural man receiveth not the things
            of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither
            can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

       ●   Rev. 14:11 -- And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up
            for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night,
            who worship the beast and his image,
            and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Would you say that all these instances in the same NT are referring to "(past tense)"?

If you don't partake in tithe because it was mearnt for a particular people in the bible, as well do not claim the promises that are made in the bible because you were not there when it was made.

Pls my dear friends in the Lord, pay your tithe

Just again for your attention, Kunle:

(a)  WHO is He that lives perpetually?

(b)  If we say that it is Melchizedek, then are we saying that he is the same as Christ?

(c)  If we say No, he is not Christ, then are we saying that he is also currently a priest?

(d)  If we say Yes, he is a priest currently, then how many highpriests do we have?

(e)  If we say only one highpriest, where then does that leave Melchizedek?

(f.)  If we have no clue about the priesthood of Melchizedek, is that not being evasive?

(g)  If we say that indeed Melchizedek is is the one in Heb. 7:8, then where is it in Scripture -
     especially because it says in that verse "it is witnessed that he liveth"
     WHERE is it witnessed or testified that He lives?

(h)  Do we take Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek as literal -
    "Without father, without mother, without descent,
      having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"?

(i.)  If we do not take that as literal, how should it be understood?

(j.)  Is there any reference outside Hebrews 7, Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
      where we could deduce that Melchizedek lives perpetually and
     "continueth ever"? This is because Heb. 7:8 says that --
     "it is testified that he lives [perpetually]" (AMP)
      I want to know where it is testified - where in Scripture is that testimony!!


I look forward to your answers - give them your best shot. Since what I have been saying do not make any sense and you keep alleging that I was being manipulative, I've decided to let you teach us while I zip up. Thank you very largely.

All this back and forth story tire me O! anyway the teachings of christ and the apostles directed us adequately when it comes to christian giving i don't know why you have decided to add you own to their directions cause one thing is clear if tithes was meant to be part of christian worship christ would have taught us himself and the apostles would have also instructed it in their epistles. But alas!! My dear pilgrim.1 Jesus said that if we love him we would keep his commandments. his commandments were to love God and to love our fellow man, he also taught us that we can demostrate our love for God by helping our fellow man. He never taught us to pay tithes and he never taught us that loving God means giving offerings(even though he commended the widow's mite). I wonder why as a christian you would prefer man made doctrines and allusions to the clear teaching of our lord Jesus christ. the Melchizedek example you keep harping on is as no bearing on christianity.

Hebrews 7:5
5 Now the law of Moses required that the priests, who are descendants of Levi, must collect a tithe from the rest of the people of Israel,[a] who are also descendants of Abraham

I just thought i should point out this verse to you which makes it CLEAR that it was the law which required the levites to collect tithes that was anulled in verse 12 and CONDENMED in verse 18. This is clearly evident cause after stating what the law states in verse 5 there was no need to repeat it's contents again in verse 12 and 18, it was already stated which law was being condenmed in verse 5 and referenced in your favourite verse 8. I know my dear one would still search for loopholes in this statement but it is the glaring truth and if you cannot come up with biblical evidence that it was another law being refered to i suggest you rest your case

Dear KunleOshob,

pilgrim.1:

Just again for your attention, Kunle:

(a) WHO is He that lives perpetually?

(b) If we say that it is Melchizedek, then are we saying that he is the same as Christ?

(c) If we say No, he is not Christ, then are we saying that he is also currently a priest?

(d) If we say Yes, he is a priest currently, then how many highpriests do we have?

(e) If we say only one highpriest, where then does that leave Melchizedek?

(f.) If we have no clue about the priesthood of Melchizedek, is that not being evasive?

(g) If we say that indeed Melchizedek is is the one in Heb. 7:8, then where is it in Scripture -
especially because it says in that verse "it is witnessed that he liveth"
WHERE is it witnessed or testified that He lives?

(h) Do we take Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek as literal -
"Without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"?

(i.) If we do not take that as literal, how should it be understood?

(j.) Is there any reference outside Hebrews 7, Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
where we could deduce that Melchizedek lives perpetually and
"continueth ever"? This is because Heb. 7:8 says that --
"it is testified that he lives [perpetually]" (AMP)
I want to know where it is testified - where in Scripture is that testimony!!


I look forward to your answers - give them your best shot. Since what I have been saying do not make any sense and you keep alleging that I was being manipulative, I've decided to let you teach us while I zip up. Thank you very largely.

Could you be so kind to answer those questions? Thank you.

ud4u:

If you don't partake in tithe because it was mearnt for a particular people in the bible, as well do not claim the promises that are made in the bible because you were not there when it was made.

please my dear friends in the Lord, pay your tithe

Kindly quote at least one scripture directed at christians in the new testament which makes tithing a precondition for biblical promises/ blessings.

It is very funny that a lot of people who claim to be christians have a very vague idea as per the true gospel of our lord jesus christ. This is mainly due to laziness(not studying the bible and thus persihing for lack of knowledge) and also the pulpit who have specialized in manipulating the scriptures over the centuries for filthy lucre.

Fuc.k tithe and fuc.k the pastor wey go hold me up because of non-payment of tithes!

tithing works and that is quite true for those who obey God's injuction. the experience and testimony of tithers is enof proof it is the will of God

(a)  WHO is He that lives perpetually? =According to hebrews8 melchizedek

(b)  If we say that it is Melchizedek, then are we saying that he is the same as Christ?= Bible does not say so
(c)  If we say No, he is not Christ, then are we saying that he is also currently a priest?= The bible says he is a priest forever(d)  If we say Yes, he is a priest currently, then how many highpriests do we have?=The bible doesn't say

(e)  If we say only one highpriest, where then does that leave Melchizedek?=The bible says Melchizedek is a high priest(f.)  If we have no clue about the priesthood of Melchizedek, is that not being evasive?= we cannot add our assumptions to the word of God.

(g)  If we say that indeed Melchizedek is is the one in Heb. 7:8, then where is it in Scripture -
     especially because it says in that verse "it is witnessed that he liveth"
     WHERE is it witnessed or testified that He lives?= Psalm 110:4 and other books not included in the bible by the catholic church (h)  Do we take Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek as literal -
    "Without father, without mother, without descent,
      having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"? = Yes
(i.)  If we do not take that as literal, how should it be understood?= As i told you earlier we are ill euipped to thouroughly thrash out this issue of Melchizedek
(j.)  Is there any reference outside Hebrews 7, Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
      where we could deduce that Melchizedek lives perpetually and
     "continueth ever"? This is because Heb. 7:8 says that --
     "it is testified that he lives [perpetually]" (AMP)
      I want to know where it is testified - where in Scripture is that testimony!!= As i told you earlier some books available to the apostles and early christians were omitted from the bible

klo:

tithing works and that is quite true for those who obey God's injuction. the experience and testimony of tithers is enof proof it is the will of God

Tithing is not God's injunction for christians and there is no evidence that tithers are better blessed than non tithers. In fact i know a lot of faithfully tithers that are always flat broke.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

All this back and forth story tire me O! anyway the teachings of christ and the apostles directed us adequately when it comes to christian giving i don't know why you have decided to add you own to their directions cause one thing is clear if tithes was meant to be part of christian worship christ would have taught us himself and the apostles would have also instructed it in their epistles. But alas!!

There are many things we practice today and hold with tight fist which we don't find in the Gospels - such as how to give in CHURCH. It is until we go to the epistles that we find instructions on such a teaching.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ taught us anything about women keeping silence in Church - until we turn to the epistles.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ said anything about head covering for women - it is in the epistles we find them.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ taught us anything about circumcision - we have to turn to the epistles to be able to understand its teachings in the NT.

I could list over 25 things dear to Christians which you will not find any reference as a direct teaching by Christ in the Gospels; but they are believed and practiced today simply because the apostles taught about them in the epistles. This weak excuse that because Christ did not teach about tithes in the NT, therefore you guys will legislate to condemn what he never once condemned - that is the silliest and most dishonest crap I ever heard coming from people who should know better!

I have repeatedly pointed these things out, only to be constantly accused every so often of evading questions where I have directly answered them! It has become the systematic gimmick coming from most tithe opposers to recoil with circular excuses when asked to deal with issues - and to come back with that lame drivel up there after it has been retired as a sequester, is to make one wonder if you guys really have any gist to your complaints. If not, no worries - we continue to be entertained by the roundabout dance!

KunleOshob:

My dear pilgrim.1 Jesus said that if we love him we would keep his commandments. his commandments were to love God and to love our fellow man, he also taught us that we can demostrate our love for God by helping our fellow man. He never taught us to pay tithes and he never taught us that loving God means giving offerings(even though he commended the widow's mite). I wonder why as a christian you would prefer man made doctrines and allusions to the clear teaching of our lord Jesus christ. the Melchizedek example you keep harping on is as no bearing on christianity.

Since you allege that they are man-made doctrines, no worries. You who know the scriptures should use the same to answer the few questions I have offered about Melchizedek above. They won't hurt you, because for now I have decided to humour you and let's receive your own teachings to see how well established your excuses are.

KunleOshob:

Hebrews 7:5
5 Now the law of Moses required that the priests, who are descendants of Levi, must collect a tithe from the rest of the people of Israel,[a] who are also descendants of Abraham

Please I want to see the version from where you quoted that verse - since you have a problem with the ones I used, please provide the translation or version and let's help you see how they have cheated you free of charge.

I have often told you, and yet you made no comment or argued against the fact: that my persuasions to tithe is not based on any Law [Moses, Sinaitic, old covenant, Levitical, etc]. They are not based on LAW but rather on LIFE ("the power of an endless life"!!

KunleOshob:

I just thought i should point out this verse to you which makes it CLEAR that it was the law which required the levites to collect tithes that was anulled in verse 12 and CONDENMED in verse 18. This is clearly evident cause after stating what the law states in verse 5 there was no need to repeat it's contents again in verse 12 and 18, it was already stated which law was being condenmed in verse 5 and referenced in your favourite verse 8. I know my dear one would still search for loopholes in this statement but it is the glaring truth and if you cannot come up with biblical evidence that it was another law being refered to i suggest you rest your case

lol, do you not see how very laughable are your arguments? Let me ask you a few questions:

   * Have you ever reasoned out the fact that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek?

   * Have you ever wondered what LAW made Levi to pay tithes?

   * Have you ever wondered that the Law did not originate tithes?

   * Have you ever wondered that the same Law does not nullify what it did not originate?

   * Have you ever seen the fact that both the Levites and all that belonged to them
      paid tithes to Melchizedek even before any law was enacted?

   * Have you ever wondered that Abraham's tithes was not based on any Law?

Did Hebrews say that because of the setting aside of Judaism, therefore the tithes that came before it had to be condemned?

You're trying to be humourous on these blind spots - and that is why I will just be reserved and ask you to answer some questions henceforth. It is easy to keep alleging issues against others where you never will attend upon simple questions. If you evade these questions, Kunle, believe me I shall waste no time to bleach this malady that has become your second worry in recent times.

Shalom.

Let me follow your reasoning:

KunleOshob:

(a)  WHO is He that lives perpetually? =According to hebrews8 melchizedek

(a) Melchizedek, yes? Ok.

KunleOshob:

(b)  If we say that it is Melchizedek, then are we saying that he is the same as Christ?= Bible does not say so

(b) No? Okay.

KunleOshob:

(c)  If we say No, he is not Christ, then are we saying that he is also currently a priest?= The bible says he is a priest forever

Still a priest, yes? ok.

KunleOshob:

(d)  If we say Yes, he is a priest currently, then how many highpriests do we have?=The bible doesn't say

Why are you being evasive here, oga? Did the Bible never tell you the answer? Okay, here:

    You said that Melchizedek is a priest forever, then what about Christ?
    Does that not make TWO instead of ONE?

There is a reason I'm asking you this question directly, Kunle. Please don't be evasive.

KunleOshob:

(e)  If we say only one highpriest, where then does that leave Melchizedek?=The bible says Melchizedek is a high priest

Being evasive again, not so? Please answer the question and stop doodling. Where does that lave Melchizedek - if Melchizedek is a HIGH PRIEST, how many HIGH PRIESTS are there?

KunleOshob:

(f.)  If we have no clue about the priesthood of Melchizedek, is that not being evasive?= we cannot add our assumptions to the word of God.

I'm not asking you to add your assumptions - just answer the questions. The ones you added have been wasted already.

KunleOshob:

(g)  If we say that indeed Melchizedek is is the one in Heb. 7:8, then where is it in Scripture -
      especially because it says in that verse "it is witnessed that he liveth"
      WHERE is it witnessed or testified that He lives?= Psalm 110:4 and other books not included in the bible by the catholic church

Edit: Em, Psalm 110:4 does not testify or witness that Melchizedek lives for ever, sir. So where indeed does it testify that He lives on??

KunleOshob:

(h)  Do we take Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek as literal -
     "Without father, without mother, without descent,
       having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"? = Yes

Okay, I hear - it is LITERAL, ba?

KunleOshob:

(i.)  If we do not take that as literal, how should it be understood?= As i told you earlier we are ill euipped to thouroughly thrash out this issue of Melchizedek

In order words, you cannot find the answer from the Bible, NO?

KunleOshob:

(j.)  Is there any reference outside Hebrews 7, Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
       where we could deduce that Melchizedek lives perpetually and
      "continueth ever"? This is because Heb. 7:8 says that --
      "it is testified that he lives [perpetually]" (AMP)
       I want to know where it is testified - where in Scripture is that testimony!!= As i told you earlier some books available to the apostles and early christians were omitted from the bible

In other words, you are not satisfied with what the Bible says, NO?

Okay, please attend to the ones we can find from the Bible and let's sort these out. No prevarications, sir. Thank you.

KunleOshob:

Tithing is not God's injunction for christians and there is no evidence that tithers are better blessed than non tithers. In fact i know a lot of faithfully tithers that are always flat broke.

I also know more faithful opposers to tithes who go around begging their tithing family members for change to tide over to the following week or month.

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob,

There are many things we practice today and hold with tight fist which we don't find in the Gospels - such as how to give in CHURCH. It is until we go to the epistles that we find instructions on such a teaching.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ taught us anything about women keeping silence in Church - until we turn to the epistles.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ said anything about head covering for women - it is in the epistles we find them.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ taught us anything about circumcision - we have to turn to the epistles to be able to understand its teachings in the NT.

I could list over 25 things dear to Christians which you will not find any reference as a direct teaching by Christ in the Gospels; but they are believed and practiced today simply because the apostles taught about them in the epistles. This weak excuse that because Christ did not teach about tithes in the NT, therefore you guys will legislate to condemn what he never once condemned - that is the silliest and most dishonest crap I ever heard coming from people who should know better!

Granted it is not every christian doctrine that christ taught, but i previously mentioned that the apostles also NEVER preached tithes so i don't know why you wet to this length to address the issue whilst ignoring the part i said apostles also never taught it. infact it wasn't smuggled into christianity until around the seventh century as you rightly know

pilgrim.1:

lol, do you not see how very laughable are your arguments? Let me ask you a few questions:

* Have you ever reasoned out the fact that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek?

* Have you ever wondered what LAW made Levi to pay tithes?

* Have you ever wondered that the Law did not originate tithes?

* Have you ever wondered that the same Law does not nullify what it did not originate?

* Have you ever seen the fact that both the Levites and all that belonged to them
paid tithes to Melchizedek even before any law was enacted?

* Have you ever wondered that Abraham's tithes was not based on any Law?

Did Hebrews say that because of the setting aside of Judaism, therefore the tithes that came before it had to be condemned?

You're trying to be humourous on these blind spots - and that is why I will just be reserved and ask you to answer some questions henceforth. It is easy to keep alleging issues against others where you never will attend upon simple questions. If you evade these questions, Kunle, believe me I shall waste no time to bleach this malady that has become your second worry in recent times.

Shalom.

So how does all this story imply that christians should tithe

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

Granted it is not every christian doctrine that christ taught, but i previously mentioned that the apostles also NEVER preached tithes so i don't know why you wet to this length to address the issue whilst ignoring the part i said apostles also never taught it. infact it wasn't smuggled into christianity until around the seventh century as you rightly know

Sorry, there are many allegations one may make about things that were "smuggled" into Christianity - it is anybody's interpretation, especially where they are secular. I don't take my facts from them - if that doesn't suit you, no worries: the Bible is sufficient to discuss the subject as we have been engaged on it so far, No?

Second, because people often make these excuses that Christ never mentioned tithes and the apostles never taught about it, that is why I have been repeating where they did. At least now, many people have stopped making the glib assertion that Christ said absolutely nothing about tithes - and if the apostles never taught anything about tithes, we shall come by to see it, starting from hebrews 7. This is why I'm taking it easy with you and asking simple questions - the way you either answer or evade those questions will determine how honest you are at examining this subject.

KunleOshob:

So how does all this story imply that christians should tithe

Call them story - it's a cheap cop-out. Would you be gracious enough to attend upon the questions or just turn a blind eye to them?

@Kunle,

Please go through my rejoinder above and see if there is not something you may want to reconsider. The answer is there, many people miss it - but don't rush: just carefully go through and see for yourself. If you're not clear, I shall point out the same and maybe that would help you see what you have been missing out. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:


Why are you being evasive here, oga? Did the Bible never tell you the answer? Okay, here:

   You said that Melchizedek is a priest forever, then what about Christ?
   Does that not make TWO instead of ONE?

There is a reason I'm asking you this question directly, Kunle. Please don't be evasive.

Being evasive again, not so? Please answer the question and stop doodling. Where does that lave Melchizedek - if Melchizedek is a HIGH PRIEST, how many HIGH PRIESTS are there?

My dear i am not being evasive, unlike you i don't add my assumptions to what the bible says. And what makes you think there can't be more than one high priest. The bible never said there was only one high priest as you are wronglly assuming. I already explained to you that the bible is too scanty on Melchizedek and we are not adequately biblically equipped to thrash out the issue. But if i don't respond to your posts you would say i am being evasive. My dear i don't force my assumptions into scripture. so lets limit our discuss towhat is clearly written in the bible and not make any assumptions. If i were to refer you to extra biblical references on Melchizedek which i have, i am not sure you would be so excited about him, but then again the references might just be wrong.

KunleOshob:

My dear i am not being evasive, unlike you i don't add my assumptions to what the bible says. And what makes you think there can't be more than one high priest. The bible never said there was only one high priest as you are wronglly assuming. I already explained to you that the bible is too scanty on Melchizedek and we are not adequately biblically equipped to thrash out the issue. But if i don't respond to your posts you would say i am being evasive. My dear i don't force my assumptions into scripture. so lets limit our discuss towhat is clearly written in the bible and not make any assumptions. If i were to refer you to extra biblical references on Melchizedek which i have, i am not sure you would be so excited about him, but then again the references might just be wrong.

The references might be wrong, and if you referred me to it, would they confirm your assertions so far? Besides, I have never asked you to add your assumptions; but your being evasive (apologies) is a fact now, because several of the questions I offered were simply scuttle round. Care to take another look and see if indeed there is something you might have to reconsider?

Psalm 110:4:

    for the Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
      “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek


Priest forever implies he lives forever.

pilgrim.1:

The references might be wrong, and if you referred me to it, would they confirm your assertions so far? Besides, I have never asked you to add your assumptions; but your being evasive (apologies) is a fact now, because several of the questions I offered were simply scuttle round. Care to take another look and see if indeed there is something you might have to reconsider?

I haven't made any assumptions from any extrabiblical source, all my assertions have been purely biblical you are the one that is trying to force another meaning into the issue of Abraham's tithe to Mel. And i haven't been evasive in my answers i answered to the limit of information which the bible gave on Mel. You are the one trying to make further assumptions.

KunleOshob:

Psalm 110:4:

   for the Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
     “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek


Priest forever implies he lives forever.

That is not a testimony that Melchizedek lives forever. If anything, that was pointing to the One to whom the promise was made: CHRIST. Let me show you:

(a) If that was spoken about Melchizedek, would it make any sense to you, Kunle? That would be as much as to say: "YOU" [Melchizedek] "ARE A PRIEST FOREVER IN THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK". That verse was not testifying that Melchizedek lived forever.

(b) That verse was pointing to CHRIST, for the oath was to HIM -

    ●   Hebrews 5:5-6
        'So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
         but he that said unto him,
         Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
         As he saith also in another place,
         Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.'

    ●   Hebrews 6:20
         Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,
         made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

KunleOshob:

I haven't made any assumptions from any extrabiblical source, all my assertions have been purely biblical you are the one that is trying to force another meaning into the issue of Abraham's tithe to Mel.

Kunle, please refrain from assertive allegations, please.

If anything, I have never sought to run to extra-Biblical sources to prove anything - we all know you are the one in recent times that have been posting all sorts from all other sources and websites to force your views. The recent one you posted only turned out to buttress what I have been saying, rather than weaken my position. Besides, since we resumed this discussion, the only who has been hooting for "extra-Biblical" equiping is you, not me.

KunleOshob:

And i haven't been evasive in my answers i answered to the limit of information which the bible gave on Mel. You are the one trying to make further assumptions.

It is from the same Bible that I offered those questions. Rather than make these assertions, do you care to go through and then see how you have not been able to point it as stated in the Bible?

pilgrim.1:

Kunle, please refrain from assertive allegations, please.

If anything, I have never sought to run to extra-Biblical sources to prove anything - we all know you are the one in recent times that have been posting all sorts from all other sources and websites to force your views. The recent one you posted only turned out to buttress what I have been saying, rather than weaken my position. Besides, since we resumed this discussion, the only who has been hooting for "extra-Biblical" equiping is you, not me.

It is from the same Bible that I offered those questions. Rather than make these assertions, do you care to go through and then see how you have not been able to point it as stated in the Bible?

Okay if you haven't been using extrabiblical sources, please show me where it is written in the bible that as a christian you can tithe based on the priesthood of melchizedek

KunleOshob:

Okay if you haven't been using extrabiblical sources, please show me where it is written in the bible that as a christian you can tithe based on the priesthood of melchizedek

That is what I have been showing you - the same reason why you have been dismissing it out of hand and condemning it where no Scripture condemned it. For this reason, I have simply sought to ask questions and wait for your answers.

Are you satisfied that there's nothing you need to reconsider in the previous rejoinders?

pilgrim.1:

That is what I have been showing you - the same reason why you have been dismissing it out of hand and condemning it where no Scripture condemned it. For this reason, I have simply sought to ask questions and wait for your answers.

Are you satisfied that there's nothing you need to reconsider in the previous rejoinders?

My dear you have not shown me one single scripture that says or suggests that as christian we should tithe based on the Melchizedek priesthood. There is no such injunction. _{My dear i have to sign off now would continue this tommorow. All christians must be set free from this shackles of tithes}

KunleOshob:

My dear you have not shown me one single scripture that says or suggests that as christian we should tithe based on the Melchizedek priesthood. There is no such injunction.

I ahve done so again and again and showed that it is not be LAW or compulsion. Rigid minded people and legalists always want to make everything they read in Scripture to be based on the LAW - and yet they have no clue what the Law teaches! Bros, you should take a step back and chill out. . . look at what Scripture says and then you will understand that what you have been assuming from the Law is simply the direct opposite! That is why I have been asking you to please go take another look at the rejoinders and see where you ahev it all wrong all this while. Whenever you return, please return with a good grasp of what they say, not what you suppose they would say.

KunleOshob:

My dear i have to sign off now would continue this tommorow. All christians must be set free from this shackles of tithes

What Christians need to be delivered from is the legalistic spirit peddling the dishonest assertion that God condemned what He never once condemned! You cannot stand to legislate for God on an issue that you continue to make hugely convoluted and evasive arguments on.

Good evening.

pilgrim.1:

I ahve done so again and again and showed that it is not be LAW or compulsion. Rigid minded people and legalists always want to make everything they read in Scripture to be based on the LAW - and yet they have no clue what the Law teaches! Bros, you should take a step back and chill out. . . look at what Scripture says and then you will understand that what you have been assuming from the Law is simply the direct opposite! That is why I have been asking you to please go take another look at the rejoinders and see where you ahev it all wrong all this while. Whenever you return, please return with a good grasp of what they say, not what you suppose they would say.

You have not done so not even once all you have been doing is quoting totally irrelevant scripture and attempting to force another meaning in to them. I challenge you once again. Quote the clear injunction directed at christains that implies, suggests or even remotely encourages them to tithe. If you cannot quote that scripture then you have no cas and it is no use refering me to any previous post to confuse me others who might be reading this thread. Just quote the scripture in your next post. i am sure one or two lines with biblical reference should suffice. My sister i implore you as a christian iit is wrong to add to or remove from the word of God, in your zeal to encourage tithes supposedly for "God's work" do fall in to the temptation of manipulating his word just to prove your point. God does not need your tithe, but the less priviledge around you do.