₦airaland Forum

Dear TV01,

Gratefully acknowledge your replies. I'll try to very quickly make some observations.

TV01:
"A curse on the church currently" ~ Yes I do. It's a consequence of men asking for a king. Another thread?

Your Curse on the Church

I'm staggered about your 'curse on the church'. I don't know where or how you ferreted that idea to lay such an allegation on God's NT people. There may be a lot of things wrong in the various expressions of worship among Christians; but to go the distance of laying a curse on the Church - please watch your tongue - you can get into trouble with God!

You'll have to settle this issue by clearly showing me a NT verse that places a curse on the Church as you have done.

You remind me of Num 23:8 - "How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the LORD hath not defied?" You ought to ask yourself if God has indeed cursed His Church before you come off sounding so emphatic about this curse of yours. Does it mean that just because you don't see your own interpretation of "church model" in other churches, they must necessarily come under your curse? You'd have to get me the NT verse that spurred you to utter such; or be courteous enough to withdraw that statement.

One more thing: 1 Samuel 8 does not indicate anything of a curse of Kingship on the Israelites, as you emphatically inferred in your piece on tithing - go and read it again. Worried about Samuel's old age and the ungodly lives of his sons (who were judges at the time - verses 1-2) the people asked for a king to judge them (perhaps, an indication of democracy? - verse 5). What followed was God's displeasure, but He did not utter any curses - NO, He did NOT!! Rather, God instructed Samuel to deliver a solemn protest to them - a very different thing from a curse (see verse 9). Is a solemn protest the same thing as a curse? You really need to calm down and take a second look at the way you read the mind of God on any subject.

TV01:
"Taxes not tithes" ~ No, I wasn't mixing them up. My point was that as children of the Kingdom, God does not legislate taxes for us.

Well, that is your opinion. On the contrary, while taxes are not divine institutes to be practised within the church (such as our financial giving), God yet asked us Christians to be responsible citizens of our various countries and pay our taxes (Rom. 13:6-7). In hindsight, I realise you might be referring to temple taxes in Matt. 17:24 - which is quite a different thing. However, taxes are part of our daily social and political experiences today wherever we find ourselves.

TV01:
However, I don't retract the underlying inference, being that the real communion of the Lords supper is a meal (I must confess I don't know how you celebrate it - How do you?). I can't tell a lie, when I saw the truth of it (or should I say was shown), I wasn't the happiest of bunnies. I find the bondage of enforced tithing a great evil, and nothing less than a blight on Christians and Christendom. And is there still a Levitical priesthood?

The Communion Supper (or, Lord's Supper) is not just a meal - it has a significance greater than any other meal. Anyone could enjoy any meal at home or elsewhere, but the Lord's Supper transcends that simplistic view.

In I Cor. 11:21-22, if you look carefully, there are two meals that the apostle might have hinted at, and often we make the mistake of lumping them together as one meal called the Supper. From Jude 1:12 and Acts 6:1, it is clear that there was a love feast (agapé) as well as the Lord's Supper that were held among the early disciples. They were not the same. The agapé could be called "the daily ministration" where certain were chosen to "serve tables" (Acts 6:1-2) as well as "love feasts (NIV)/feasts of charity (KJV)" (Jude 12). In this, everyone brought their own meals sometimes to share with the poorer folk in church - that is why Paul remonstrated with the Corinthians that their carelessness shamed and despised the have-nots, while others were taking their own supper before others arrived. Afterwards, he sets the tone of the Lord's Supper and called for discernment (verses 23-29).

You may have objections to this view, and I hope I don't come under your curse for that.
However, please study well those scriptures, and you'll perhaps see that the love feasts and the Lord's Supper were two distinct meals which were often held in the same meeting but never lumped up in one whole or confused the one for the other.


As for the Law and Grace issue, looks to me that there are many things you're mixing up - and that will take me a whole greater volume to explicit upon at the moment. So, perhaps you'd grant me the grace to let that wait until after my trip and then treat it in another thread.

Thank you so much for your forebearance, and I look forward to your comments - welcome anytime.

God bless.

Hnd-holder:
Good talk, by their fruit we shall know them. Christ once said that not all that call me lord will enter into paradise but only those that does the will of God. If tithe was a way to paradise Christ would have taught us. Today Malachi intention to warn the priests has been twisted.

@Hnd-holder,

Indeed, Christ did not teach us that tithing was a way to paradise; rather He clearly taught that repentance and faith in Him is the prerequisite to being saved. This is what the NT calls being born again (John 3:3-5).

That notwithstanding, there are a few things not mentioned in the Gospel naratives but are found in the NT Epistles - should we therefore reject these just because Christ did not teach about them as the way to paradise? A few examples: (a) Christ in the Gospels did not teach about the Body of Christ; but it is a NT teaching in the epistles; (b) head covering is a matter dealt with in the NT, but it is not found in Christ's teachings in the Gospels; etc. Just because Christ did not teach this or that as a way to paradise does not mean that they don't matter as much as what He taught. Our whole lives as Christians do not revolve around John 3:16 alone. The NT teachings in the epistles are still the teachings of Christ which He promised that the Holy Spirit would communicate to the apostles (John 14:26 and 16:14-15). That's why He said: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." What the apostles teach, therefore, are part of Christ's commandment to believers.

Now, the question is: if tithing was so bad and Christ did not teach it in the Gospels, did He or the apostles rather condemn it in the NT? Or, are those who tithe going straight to hell? You'll find people have twisted the whole Bible, not just Malachi; but that does not mean Malachi or any other passage dealing with tithes is necessarily twisted.

Another text is Prov. 3:9 - "Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase." Is this any different from what I Cor. 16:2 says? - "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." I don't see the difference between "the first fruits of all thine increase" and "as God has prospered him". As long as the Bible did not condemn tithes in the NT, there's no reason for me to pretend it does. This does not mean that Prov. 3:9 is all about tithing - please read my earlier posts to see where I'm coming from.

Regards.

nike4luv:
what about proverbs 20:1 [authorised king james version says : Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise}

i think too much of the wine is wrong but just a slight drink cannot do much harm after all jesus served his disciple with wine at the last supper which was accounted as his blood [through transubstantiation]
its also worthwhile to think maybe jesus actually drank wine or not although am not sure if he got drunk.

lets see: Luke 7:33-34 which states that "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax
collectors and "sinners.

. . . This implies that Jesus possibly drank wine (although I'm
sure He didn't get drunk!).

Dear nike4luv,

Taken in all, there's no reason to suppose by any stretch that Jesus might have been drunk at any time. This would be contradicting the timeless message of Eph. 5:18, because 'drunkenness' and 'Spirit-filled' do not go together, past, present, or future. Drunkenness is one of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:16-21), and unless we suppose that Jesus was walking carnally or fleshly at any time, there is just no reason to think of Him as such.

I've seen quite a volume of views and articles supposing Jesus drank alchohol, or even worse, got drunk! Whenever I pointed out that this could not be possible, quite often than not, it shows that the people who take such views have not carefully gathered the full picture by looking at all the scriptures on the subject. Granted, some have very strong reasons that Jesus drank wine. My persuasions are that the contexts in which the word 'wine' occurs does not give much room to believe that all wines are alchoholic.

Prov. 20:1 is a wonderful reminder of the difference between wine and strong drink - and timely words there: "whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise"

Well, as concerning the last Supper, we are not so sure what Jesus might have served that night; but there's reason to believe it wasn't strong drink or strong wine. . . lol. First, the synoptic Gospels only said "fruit of the vine" (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18); and this is why my persuasions are that not all wines (as 'fruit of the vine') were alcholic - in the sense of this topic (Is It Right For Christians to Take Alchohol?).

Now the accusations levelled by some people back then against Jesus being drunk in Luke 7:33-34 does not mean that the maddening crowd was right (they said He was a winebibber - meaning ordinarily that He was a drunkard or given to much wine!). Remember that there were many things people accused Jesus of, but not one of them was true (compare Mark 14:56). The accusations were pejoratively prejudicial (that is, they were bitter and biased), and for all of that, Jesus pointed out their bias as untrue by saying, "But wisdom is justified of all her children." No, Jesus was not drunk, neither were the accusations true.

nike4luv:
i think the word 'wine' appears over 200 times in the king james version of the bible.

correct me if am wrong

You're right about that - the word 'wine' actually appears more than 200 times (I counted 229, maybe more) in the KJV Bible - its first occurence in Gen. 9:21 and the last is Rev. 18:13.

I hope that helps - but again, I'm human and might have failed to see some of the things that others see.

God bless all.

And here it is

Let's remember: part of the prophetic calling of Jesus was that He was called a Nazarene (Matt. 2:23). Now, it seems from Num. 6:3 that the law of the Nazarite is that he was not to drink anything made from grapes - that is, including wine. However, Jesus drank wine, as is positively suggested by Luke 7:33-34. Does this mean that He broke the law of the Nazarene, or that He even got drunk? Not at all, because after the Nazarene had fulfilled conditions of his vow, then he may (permissibly) drink wine (Num. 6:20).

Now this brings about the second part of your enquiry, TV01: is non-alchoholic wine merely fruit juice or soda and not actually wine?

I'm not so sure it is correct to say that non-alchoholic wine is not actually wine. God's Word says that wine is wine, and there were non-alchoholic wines back in Biblical times. In just a moment in my reply to nike4luv's post, I'll attempt an explanation showing that Jesus actually would have taken wine without getting drunk/drunken.

As for concerns about beer and palm wine, my view is that they are classed under alchoholic drinks - they're fermented to alchoholic states. What I still would offer is that, it is entirely up to any Christian to have a personal judgement about what to do. My personal conviction is that I would rather be filled with the Spirit of God and the Father's love than suck any bottle for a few moments and become fuzzy. Yet, I'm no better than he who drinks wine (alchoholic or non-alchoholic), as it's not in my place to be judgemental towards anyone.

Paul urged (not commanded) Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake and frequent illness (I Tim. 5:23) - and that alone shows me, at least, that wine is not condemned in God's word. All I offer is that if drunkenness is a manifestation of the flesh (Gal. 5:21), and we're asked to be rather filled with the Spirit than with wine unto drunkenness (Eph. 5:18), you'd not want to give any room for careless drinking in your life as a Spirit-filled believer. This does not change my earlier views (and perhaps I should be more specific):

(non-alchoholic) wines - yes, permissible (not condemned nor commanded)

alchohol/alchoholic drinks - not encouraged (as alchohol is a step away from drunkenness).


Second, it's a little hilarious that you could be quick to read my rejoinders as "splitting hairs. . . correctness. . .and pedantic". Wow. But you little realise that you've been doing the same thing. I mean, why are my efforts interpreted as such if you could spend a lengthy page being so 'corrective' and 'meticulous' about tithes/tithing, then come off conveniently calling yours "completeness"? It's simple really: everyone aims at presenting their views in a very convincing manner - and if detail for some is key to reaching that goal, so be it - others will state it in two words and not bother about detail. Let me assure you: I'm not being pedantic - rather, I'm challenged to see any issue from as many sides as I possibly can before drawing a conclusion. The question was about Christians taking alchohol (rather than wine); and I thought the distinction between the two might be helpful.

TV01:
"Permissable" does not mean encouraged, and "not encouraged" does not mean impermissable.
So my reading of your conclusion is that it's something of a non-statement.

Read me well - I did not use "permissible" in any sense to mean "encouraged" - I know the difference, so please don't spin me off. The Bible does not command the drinking of wine or anything else; neither does it condemn it. As far as that is made clear, I don't see the hoo-ha about being corrective in my use of the word "permissible" - I didn't mean it to read as "encouraged" (I'm sure that others would see the sense in my use of the word). 'You may drink wine' is saying that drinking wine is permissible; it does not mean that it is 'encouraged' or 'commanded' or 'condemned'.

TV01:
Like I said, I am not insinuating anything or being sly. I say it as I see it. Please don't be offended. In the cut and thrust of lively debate, things can easily be misconstrued. It helps me to stick too the essence of the discussion. You quite frequently use the term "my dear", you may well mean it as an endearment, but I find it patronising. But I don't let it stop me enjoying your posts.

I've used several terms of endearment besides 'my dear' on others, as various other Nairalanders have at one time or the other used theirs - go through other threads or message boards on the Religion Forum to see for yourself. However, I'll respect your concern (if not objections) and withdraw them henceforth with an apology to you. I'm not offended, and hope you won't read me as such.

Best regards.

Hello TV01,

My trip's been good, but tiring. All the same, I'm enjoying every bit of it - thanks

I'll need to take some time to answer your enquiries in two stages so ambiguities are minimised.

TV01:
My "splitting hairs" comment is in reference to your distinguishing between wine and alcohol.
I don't quite get it? To me the very term "non-alcoholic" wine is in some sense an oxymoron. Given, it may be the case these days, but surely not in biblical times? In the real sense of this thread, non-alcoholic wine is not actually wine. It's fruit juice or soda.

The oxymoron was not mine, but I offer that the Bible would not have taken the pains to distinguish between wine and strong drink if God didn't intend for us to know the difference, wouldn't you agree? Besides, there are other verses that variously translate the same Hebrew word shêkâr as 'strong drink' or 'strong wine' in our English Bibles (see Num. 28:7 and Lev. 10:9 - same word but translated variously). This distinction is implied so we don't just take 'strong wine' as merely 'wine' - they are worlds apart (compare Num. 28:7 & 14). Strong wine is made from wine, and there's clearly a distinction made between the two.

I appreciate your concern, but the point is that God makes a distinction between what is alchoholic wine and what is not. Granted that all wines contain a certain percentage of alchohol in them, no matter how small or insignificant; but a low percentage of alchohol does not qualify any drink as 'alchoholic drink'. I'm not so sure that 'non-alchoholic wine' is not 'wine' - that's not true. You'd be sounding just like laughable me for supposing that if wine is not alchoholic, then it is not wine! There is certainly such a thing as 'non-alchoholic wines' as distinct from 'alchoholic wines'.

Some Details

If you'd like to see a sample of a more comprehensive distinction, then read about the Nazarite vow of separation in Num. 6:3 (note underlined words) - "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried." Do you notice the degree of gradation?

wine
strong wine
vinegar of wine
vinegar of strong drink
liquor of grapes
moist grapes
dried grapes

The last two, surprisingly, are intoxicating as well, if you take the time to do a study on them. The point is, wine is the least intoxicating in the list above, but I concede that in many places the Bible indicates that there's a certain amount of alchohol in most wines than we realise. The patriachs mostly (not always) took wine with some alchoholic content; but as Prov.20:1 says, those who were not careful did some very foolish things. Noah uncovered himself in his tent after taking wine (clearly the fermented/alchoholic type - Gen. 9:21); and Isaac also drank wine with no reports afterwards of fuzziness (Gen. 27:25).

Wine is not condemned as such in the Bible - and even strong drink/wine was used among God's people, as we've seen so far. Is it not amazing that Scripture says wine cheers both God and man in Judges 9:13? Yet, why do you suppose that in matters of divine communication, there's often an appeal to refrain from wine and strong drink as in Judges 13:4 - "Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing."

Second stage follows shortly.

Good one there, dearzi.

Oga biggjoe, I suspected you'd vamoose again on another sabbatical that's why I asked at first. Please come back - we need your presence here more than the disappearing acts you're putting up lately. I may not belong to the group you're advising (don't know why you dropped me from your list); but then, you leave us wondering as to whether or not you're taking your own advice. For example, I'm still waiting on you to serve me an answer from your own understanding (remember?) about how apostle Peter qualified as a Pope.

However, it's not a big deal - relax; if this thread has become worn out to you, there are other threads where your inputs are needed. As is evident from the responses following your preceding post, there are others besides me who miss you and require answers from your intellect.

We love you, believe it or not; and if no one else shouts it, your high pontificate, believe me, I'm missing your presence on Nairaland.

My Rock of Salvation

My High Tower and Refuge

Fortress and Shield

Refiner and Purifier

J - Jehovah Is His Name!

U - Upholder of All Things

D - Dread of the Enemy

A - Abba Father

H - Hosanna, He is King!

J - Jesus, Jehovah Our Salvation

E - Eternal Spirit, Blesser of All

S - Saviour, Soon Coming King

U - Universal King of Glory

S - Sanctifier and Protector

[@Zahymaka, may God bless you double!]

S - Sovereign Lord

H - Heavenly Father

I - Intimate Friend

L - Love Unlimited

O - Omnipotent Creator

H - Holy Redeemer

Giver of Life

Healer

Blessed Forever

bolex:
This is our night to praise God

All these days of talking about everything in this Forum and not God

I sacrifice tonight to bless God

I might be staying on this thread all night praising my Father in heaven

Just for God

No be only you - we plenty, and yes - this night na helele for praise!! Kai! Satan go pick race!  



Abba Father!

King of glory.

God Alone

God Who Is God and the Rewarder of those who deligently seek Him.

[Elyon is it!]

King of Nations

Ancient of Days

Reverend is His Name

bolex:
AND YOU TOOO

AND EVERYONE

Amen and Amennn!!  



Father of Mercy

God of all Comfort

Unsearchable Yet So Close

Healer of the Wounded

Father to the Fatherless

Unshakable Hope of the Hopeless

Confounder of the Arrogant

Exalter of the Humble

The One Who Inhabits the Praises of His People

                                                                - [that is why all of you who are praising Him here
                                                                 will be blessed beyond your wildest dreams. Amen.]

The Only Potentate

Author and Finisher of Our Faith

Father like None Else

Nothing and No-one Like Him

donnie:
That is because the conscience of carnal christains as well as their atheist counterparts will not let them rest.

Dear Donnie, why is almost everyone a carnal Christian who does not fall into your camp? And don't atheists have a right as much as you to give their own views here and elsewhere? What kind of world are you encouraging with such snide remarks? They may not fit your description of spirituality, but we should love and respect the atheist for being a human being at least.

Hnd-holder:
You want to reap where you did not sow Donnie by waiting daily for others to bring tithe. Please cover your face, let listen to those who are new on board like 4get_me He should read early posts. We are not in court and the BIBLE is not a constitution for philosophical debate. That is the way you see the bible, we know the history and you can not claim to know more than the authors of those verses. Why they use those words has implication and dogma was never intended as today sociologist, psychologist turn pastor use it to milk the unsuspected believers. Only the truth that can set us free.

My dear Hnd-holder, you missed the point, I'm afraid. Whether or not you hold anything against me as a JJC is not the issue - I asked for "the truth" you claimed you know; not the petty vexations you've expressed here. Second, I was not aware that tithing had anything to do with a "philosophical debate" - neither did I hold anyone to ramson in a court proceeding. It's true that I didn't go through everyone of the more than 560 views and opinions expressed; but of the more than 230 (including long and short ones) that I read, there was nothing new that the others were likely to input - it's either a 'yes' or 'no' sort of thing. I only gave my inputs from my understanding and experience, nor did I claim to know more than the authors. But if your pastor is a sociologist-psychologist-turned-pastor (if you have one at all), that's not my problem: it's yours.

The truth that I see has set me free from the hand-to-mouth experiences and complaints I had when complaining against tithes and "what-the-pastor-did-with-my-money" attitude. I notice one thing, though - those who complain hardly receive in abundance. If you don't want to give tithes, I respect that, and may God bless you for that; yet, it does not take anything away from me. Ask, and you'll receive - that's what I see in the Bible, and that's what I've been experiencing.

Regards.

Hey Fluffy,

I was away from my desk, but appreciate your concern. It's true I used the masculine pronoun in addressing God - but as has been explained, our language is limited in expressing the real essence of God to the full.

I pray to and speak of God as "Father, Son, Holy Spirit", and use the "He/Him" pronouns. But I don't necessarily see Him as Male - that's gender and sex distinction. In my first post, I made reference to Gal. 3:28 showing that there is neither male nor female in Christ, who is the express image of God. That was astounding the day I saw that; and that was what informed my view that God is bigger than gender and sex distinction - we cannot find Him out unto perfection (Job 11:7).

TayoD, many thanks for your insightful rejoinders.

Blessings all.

ono:
My people, just one thing that's puzzling to me.

As a christian I have taken wines with alcoholic content of just 3%, and I remained a normal person. I did not hic or jerk or stumble. I just remained myself. Did I do anything wrong by drinking that liquor?

No, my brother. . . and that was not liquor you drank - check the meaning, and you'll see why. 

You and I may not make this distinction; but outside here and the several countries I've visited, it is common practice when you go to a liquor store and ask for non-alchoholic wines and beverages, they know at once that you're asking for non-alchoholic drinks including wines of some specialty (even though those wines contain a certain amount of alchohol in them). When I first got to Europe, I was laughed at (my shame) because I thought all wines were alchoholic". If you sit in some restaurants and ask for the non-alcholic wines list, no one would grimace at you - they serve you a list such as this one where you'll find "Non-Alchoholic Meads. . . Non-Alcholic White Wine. . . and Non-Alchoholic Red Wine". (click on the links).

The distinction I made between wine and alchohol (or spirits, brandy, whisky, if you please) is taken in the sense that we all know what they mean in everyday usage - just like the Bible would not have made the distiction between 'wine' and 'strong drink' if they were in the same class.

For the social distinction between wines and alchohol, see these sources and helpful links (Robinvale Wines are good non-alchoholic drinks - scroll to bottom of page). Just because something contains a 'little alchoholic content' does not therefore qualify it to be called "alchohol". Whatever the case, 'take a little wine for thy stomach' (I Tim. 5:23) . . .and forgive me if I dare add (not adding to God's word!): take a little wine for the rejoicing of your soul in parties and functions: God will not vex for you. 

Be careful however, that you don't tend to strong drink, liqour, brandy, whisky, sapele water, scotch, ogogoro, and such like.

         Wine - yes, permissible;
         Alchohol - not encouraged.

I hope that is not too difficult to understand now. Sorry for the confusion anyone might have read.

Blessings. 

Precisely my point. The way I see it, our various pesuasions are that God is:

(a) both Male and Female

(b) only Male

(c) either Male or Female

(d) sexless.

I believe that God not emphatically a gender (this is different from saying that God is 'sexless'), or at best, He does not reveal Himself as comparable to anything (see Isa. 64:5). Even if there could be a "sexless being" anywhere in the universe, it still does not change the fact that nothing can be compared to God - absolutely nothing! People are created in the image and likeness of God, but if that reads as emphasizing gender, what about the animals: are the not "male and female?"

Christ is the image of God and this image is not about gender/sex. In Heb. 1:3, before He became Man, Christ was the express image of God in the sense of expressing the real essence of who God is. This is beyond a Male or Female matter - it is about knowing who God is as revealed in Christ.

Dear TV01,

My apologies that my very busy weekend schedules slowed down my quick replies to your enquiries about the Cross, and other issues. I hope to do so just before my trip late this afternoon to Amsterdam, otherwise it would have to be after my return in a week.

However, you surely didn't read me splitting hairs about anything here, do you? If you do, please point it out. I'm bemused that you're complaining about "correctness" here - tell me, what do I call all your previous efforts at quoting the Bible and lecturing us on the word "tithing" occuring in the Bible 43 times? I find that kind of sly insinuation uncalled for, my dear.

My submissions on this very interesting topic are that:

  (a) drinking wine is permissible, not commanded

  (b) alchohol consumption is not encouraged among Spirit-filled believers

  (c) anyone who wants to do one or the other should do so on personal judgement

. . . and I've tried to share on why I am persuaded about these from what I see in the Bible. Where the enquiries have pointed out something of an oversight in my posts, I graciously concede that I'm only human and try to offer further help by going back to the Bible to take a second look at the objections. How has that become a scenario of "splitting hairs" and "correctness"?

With regards to the tithing issue, please read me well in the lines above - I wasn't implying that tithing was meant alone for the Jewish people; but rather "that scripture" (Deut. 14:26) in reference to the 'strong drink' was directed to and meant for the Jews alone. That in no way means that everything about tithing should rest on Deut. 14:26, unless you deliberately ignore the flow of my statements in the other points raised.

I hope that we can rub minds simply without recourse to such insinuations as you suggest.

Kind regards.

Reverend, please be a gentleman. Even the Bible that you don't want to quote, read, or respect says it is good for a man not to condemn himself by allowing the same thing that he decries. You decried kimba's getting so upset, supposing him to have attacked people in his replies; yet, you attacked him by calling him names. What do you mean by "bible bashing hysterical rhetoric" and "a brain washed sin monger" in reference to him? Do I suspect that you have a personal vitriol against him and would use any opportunity to vent your own misgivings, especially because he called you a false prophet previously?

Anyway, my own reply may not be welcome by many; but then, I appreciate some of the questions that have really taken me to task, including this one. Beyond this thread and Forum, I've encountered that question among friends and in other debates. Perhaps 'The Last Outcast' by Rev. Chris Okotie acknowledges that the question is entrenched in so many people's minds, otherwise he would not have so much as bothered to write a line about it. Whatever the issue, we should be discerning, appreciative enough to respond to some of these questions. In the past, I did it the wrong way - but in recent times I learned to cool down, talk to people instead of judging them; and this is the reason why I don't mind a debate with an atheist, respecting him for being a human being first before anything else.

However, that does not mean that I support or curry favour with you, Reverend. You need to repent and put your faith in Christ and God's Word. If you are opposed to that, no qualms - I'm not the Judge, God is. My answer is that you simply take Jesus' advice - fear Him!! (Matt. 10:28).

@jagunlabi. . .lol.

Your answer is before you: define a Christian from the Bible and voila!

My dear belotti,

There are a few things that you've pointed out that I agree with - people see things from widely divergent perspectives. Understanding of the sort that we're seeking is not fostered by the idea of supremacy of religion (if we know what that means); and the examples you used fall far short of an objective response in many circles. First, Jesus did not "become our new God" - and that sad interpretation is informed by ignoring the Old Testament, which incidentally the Qur'an seems to acknowledge. You may not understand my point of view as I may not yours. Even until today, Muslims may not understand any other people or faith outside of Islam; and the debates continue between Christians and atheists, among many other pluralistic beliefs.

However, whatever perspectives of the interpretations or philosophy of life each one of us holds, there is clearly a consensus as to the appeal of peace, tolerance and goodwill across international boundaries. It's not enough to hold the slogan "Yours is yours and ours is ours", or "To you belong your religion and to us belong ours." What you don't seem to realise is that religion or any other worldview should not be an excuse to go on rampage and killing people (and some people believe this is their religion) - whether that religion is Islam, Christianity, Bahá'ísm, secularism, or even a non-religious or atheistic beliefs.

It's news to me that Da Vinci Code has "as much" impact on Islam as it may have on Christianity. Maybe some, but Muslims have not demonstrated "as much" reaction of refuting the misrepresentations of Da Vinci Code - since it is not specifically an Islamic thing. The movie is only days before it hits the screens; I wait to see the "as much impact" from Muslims it will generate from viewing it. Think and be sincere about this: what would the case have been if the Da Vinci Code was specifically recasting the Islamic faith by any stretch of imagination? That is the heart of the matter, dear belloti.

However you cut the cookie, it's obvious that most people will argue and debate issues from their religious interpretations and persuasions - none of us can help it sometimes, even you!

Yours have made good read, and challenging as well. I look forward to such intellectually challenging inputs from the various minds on Nairaland.

Blessings.

One more thing: let me quickly chip in here that those who want use Deut. 14:26 as the champion excuse for boozing should answer the following questions in all sincerity:

(a) that scripture is connected to tithing and meant for the Jewish people alone - are you a Jew?

(b) it was supposed to be done at a specific time once a year - do you know what that time of the year is?

(c) it is connected with worship at Shiloh were the Jews were in Jehovah's presence - are you drinking strong liquor in His presence?

(d) it was not to be done in one's house, a campus or drinking bar, but in Shiloh where God put His name - are you in Shiloh?

If you can't answer these questions according to Deut. 14:26, then that verse is not for you, and using it as an application for any consumption of alchohol is missing the mark by a million miles.

Regards.

@ Enigma,

Interesting. I'll grant you that indeed I saw that verse and several others about strong drinks before stating my views earlier above. Like you and some of us, such verses have been a bit amazing until I began to see why 'vinegar' in John 19:29-30. Let me share a few remarks wrt to your enquiry:

1. Translation

The KJV, NASB and RSV are closer to the original words used - wine and strong drink. In fact, when you study that verse, the emphasis is stronger than in English, because 'strong drink' is not simply 'beer' or 'similar drink', but 'intensely alchoholic liquor'. Indeed, people got drunk in such gatherings of God's people, as is suggested by I Sam. 1:3, 7, 13-14. There we see that people went to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice yearly, and in that memorable moment, it is possible to find some people drunk in the celebrations, as Eli the priest scolded Hannah in verse 14, supposing she was drunk. But notice also, that the priest did not encourage that state of mind, for he said, "How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee." The priest who knew God's mind advised people to put away wine, and also sought to discourage drunkenness among God's people.

2. God's Permissive Will

Notice the remarkable thing about Deut. 14:26 - God did NOT command the purchase of wine or strong drink, or any other thing in that verse. Surprised? Look again, for all He said was "whatsoever thy soul lusteth after" - it was not a commandment, but a forbearance (for lack of a proper word). The commandment was that everyone was expected to tithe (verse 22). In verse 23, wine was mentioned, but not strong drink; only in God's permissive will do we read of strong drink in verse 26. It's as if God was saying, "It's up to you - choose what you want to eat and drink", but He adds: "learn to fear the LORD thy God always." I doubt if drunkenness shows the fear of God in a person's life.

Verse 26 - those who were afar from Shiloh should turn their material tithe into money and purchase anything "their souls lusted after" in order that they might rejoice in God's presence. So, how does this translate into God's permissive will? Please understand that not everything that God said was strictly an obligated command in some circumstances; and before anyone stones me for blasphemy, let me explain.

Divorce was an OT "permissive" will of God, even though He hated it (Deut. 24:1). When this question came up in the NT, the Jews enquired why Moses commanded "a writing of divorcement" and send a woman away. Jesus revealed that Moses did that because of the hardness of their hearts, while establishing that God's original will was not divorce (Matt. 19:3-. God allowed divorce as a demonstration of the condition of a man's heart - not because it was His express divine command and will.

An example of how God tests our ability to discern spiritual things is in Judges 7:3-7. God said, "I will try them", and out of ten thousand, only three hundred men passed the test. It pays to be discerning.

So, I offer that Deut. 14:26 was not a direct command to buy and consume strong drink - it was only a permissive will, and only the wise of heart who know God's mind will see this. Undiscerning people will not notice the difference and so will rush for the booze.

3. God's Perfect Will

In the NT, the life of the Christian is marked by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We are not characterized by the mind and choices of the natural man (I Cor. 2:14)  - only people given to natural (carnal?) inclinations fail to discern what is spiritual from what is not. Our minds are to be daily renewed as we present our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God; it is by this we shall understand and prove what is the good, acceptable and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:1-3).

That's why I've always shared that wine is permissible; but alchohol is not encouraged. I submit that if a Christian wants to drink alchohol, it is entirely up to him/her - and moderation would not matter in such cases, for the man who wants to booze knows no restraints. However, the wisest thing to do is follow God's call to the believer to be filled with the Holy Spirit, rather than with wine in which is excess (Eph. 5:18).

Thank you for sharing and the challenge you posed. It's been worth every ounce of my effort, as deep calls unto deep, and iron sharpens iron.

God bless.

And finally. . .

(C) Tithe Explained By You

I read your April 04 piece patiently twice over - commendable. However, here I'll outline a few things you got wrong and your tone and attitude in that wirte-up; and then in another post share what you're missing in your understanding about the subject.

You stated in reference to the number of times 'tithe' was mentioned in the Bible that -

"Six times in the 36 verses above, and twice when God uttered the curse of Kingship
on the Israelites for rejecting Him (quite interesting this, and so very relevant to the
current model of church ~ 1 Samuel chapter 8 ).

Are you infering that tithing was a curse of Kingship on the Israelites and therefore a curse on the church currently?

Again, about Leviticus 27:

"Note also that it was the tenth one (verse 33), not the first one that was counted.
So that would indicate that those with an increase of less than ten would not be
required to tithe."

Wrong. Everyone was expected to tithe whatever was their increase, and Lev. 27:32 was "concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock" passing under the rod; and not about tithes of other things.

In your last paragraph, Matt. 17:24-26 that you referenced was concerning taxes, not tithes, unless there's a good explanation that you may have for mixing up both.

Lastly, your undertones were a bit worrisome. Without being tedious to you, I'd offer that you refrain from using such sarcasm (words underlined) in reference to views you don't agree with or understand:

(i) Under Leviticus 27 the third point you mentioned has this:

"Feasting. (Yes feasting, not that impoverished monthly ritual we call communion!)"


(ii) There is no longer a Levitical priesthood (but those pesky Pharisees won’t quit!).



Warm regards.

Hello TV01,

Good to read yours. It's true we all have differing views and the best we can do is try to persuade one another from our convictions of what each one of us thinks the Scriptures say. With regards to your enquiries, I'll take them in three parts.

(A) Jesus' Fulfilling The Law

Rom 8:3-4: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The law had a righteousness that we could not fulfill (reach unto), and it was Jesus' death and resurrection that accomplished the basis for our being set free as well as fulfilling this righteousness in us. The word 'fulfill' has more than one sense in Matt. 5:17 - while Jesus did not come to 'set at nought' (destroy) the Law and the Prophets, He came to give them their real meaning and essence (fulfill).


(B) Law-Grace Dichotomy

Quite often, I notice you mix up the teaching of Law and Grace in scripture. My inability to fulfill its requirements is because the Law is spiritual and I am carnal (Rom. 7:14). However, through Jesus Christ, God gives me grace to live according to His will through the power of the Spirit.

The problem is that, many times you quote texts in the epistles to "prove" that the Law was not applicable under the economy of the OT during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus. An example in your quote of April 04, 2006, 05:08 PM was Gal. 2:6 following your explanation of Luke 18:12. You clearly mixed up issues. The Pharisee could not be "justified by faith in Christ" (Gal. 2:6) while the law was still standing! Infact, Gal. 3:23 says, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." The faith was not 'revealed' (that is, did not come into full effect) until Jesus Christ was glorified. So, the Pharisee's problem was not Gal. 2:6 but rather a question of pride and self-righteousness which Jesus exposed in Luke 18:9 & 14. You may want to take time out to study it.

What kind of threat are you speaking about here? My dear, I don't want to go into long drawn-out thesis at this point to demonstrate that the riots are not to be explained away on the basis of anybody feeling threatened, whether as a religion or as a people. Have Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and other believers of other faiths not felt threathened at anytime in their history?

And even to grant you this misconception, you come back to the point that has already been made: just because people feel threatened does not justify the unrests that led to the murder of innocents lives. Pardon me, but to justify such in anyway on the basis of a perceived threat is to give fuel to the view that all is not well in Islam - that is not my opinion, it is the inference you're trying to make in your statement.

Personally, I don't feel that just because people feel threatened they should go on rampage and kill anyone. That sort of thing cannot be justified at all. Christians still feel threatened today in their Muslim dominated countries of Pakistan and Egypt; their own prophets and faith are still being vilified by Muslims in those countries. Yet, Christians have not gone on rampage at any corner of the earth to kill anyone because of such religious threats to their faiths and collective identity.

You're mixing up issues, and let me share something with you. The oppression you complain of about Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan should not have had anything to do with cartoons published in Europe - in that aspect, you may have been correct (even though not many Muslims would agree with you on that). However, if you're of the view that the oppression is a "Christian thing", you'll be hugely wrong, because it is largely political. The allied forces were not brought together under a "Christian" agenda but rather a political one. So those who feel that just because President Bush is a Christian and therefore the occupation in Iraq should be viewed as a war between Christianity and Islam - such people have got it all wrong.

Many times people from the "Muslim East" speak of the "Christian West" - however, let's not allow that misconception to becloud our sense of judgement. Europe is largely secular; and America is not a religious country, but a secular state, although majority of the people who live there are Christians. But why is it that anytime Muslims discuss the "West/western interests", they fail to make this distinction and see every Christian as an enemy? That doesn't make sense for the common understanding of people from around the globe.

Whether cartoons or perceived threat to religion or people, I still don't subscribe to the idea that people of any faith - Christian, Islam, Hindu, Bahá'í, etc - should go on rampage to kill anyone. There are other, better ways to express disaffection; not what has happened in the recent past.

Peace.

Prof_Chaos, are you asking that in respect of the topic or you want to come back to the issues outside the topic so you could convince yourself that you did not understand its lesson?

If you understood the lesson initially, what has "change the religion of god to satisfy their hunger for control and money" got to do with it? If you were humble enough to respect your "Christian brethren", you didn't find it necessary to apologise for misreading their Holy Book?

Relax - I'm not asking you to apologise to me because you won't. It's no big deal for me to swallow insults or apologise to people: I've done it once, twice and a dozen other times where they've pointed out their misgivings in my posts.

With respect to your question, let me offer you the alternatives of either (1) opening a new thread for a good follow-up on it; or (2) feel free to discuss it anywhere you please and state clearly what you're concerned about. Perhaps this will help others better understand where you're coming from and remove all ambiguities.

Thank you and warm regards.

Nothing new, nferyn.

I should not be tedious to you on your exercise, so that you can devote some time to the other thread where you'd wanted to state your views. Good to note, however, that what you've been trying to refute is unconsciously established in your last response: since Hitler hated Jews so much, Christianity should be blamed for shouting fire as impetus for Nazi trampling. Great - but that still does not negate the fact that secular Europe today has many people in various circles who don't need the shouting of fire from Christians to display unbelievable anti-semitism.

Regards.

Thanks for setting clear your points, nferyn, with respect to the perspective from which you'd be discussing the topic.

I agree with you about discussing history with data from historical research - and that equally applies to making recourse to religious texts, especially when they reference historical antecedents. The latter are not ancillary to what one would consider "historical data", and any balanced view on the subject would not simply write them off as untenable for the sake of convenience.

Again, please understand that my making any reference to the Holocaust does not indicate a lack of sensitivity to the subject: in fact, it is the very opposite of what you suppose. Jews in diaspora may not tell you everything about their ancient history, but it is clear that any discussion that misrepresents the terms used (such as anti-semitism) is as likely to evoke the same feeling of disaffection. It was undiluted anti-semitism that led to the Holocaust, and Hitlerism is not the same thing as Christianity, for those who feel the calm of conscience to shift the blame on the latter. I'm still left confused that "Why Did Hitler Hate Jews So Much" should very widely be blamed on Christianity and the NT. As a gentleman, you would not want me to believe you're making that connection without realising that more than the Jews are likely to be affected negatively. It's like saying, "Hitler hated Jews so much - blame it on Christianity and the NT!"

Why are some of us persuaded that anti-semitism should not be largely blamed on Christianity and the NT? For the simple reason that the roots of anti-semitism and anti-Judaism predate Christianity - and it is this very fact that a lot of historians vigorously try to ignore for the convenience of cushioning their interpretation of historical antecedents. It is not a wonder anymore, therefore, that political history tries to rubbish the Torah as "entirely mythical" so that it seems the phenomenon of this topic is synonymous with the Christian faith.

This in no way stops you from making your points in the Forum. A lot of people have different perspectives on the subject, and you may be surprised that so many people do not need Chrsitianity or the NT to be passionately anti-semitic.

Many thanks for your patience, and I'll respect whatever views you express.