₦airaland Forum

AleXis0r:
Except you are against tithing in the New Covenant. I've stated that from the Bible, tithe was meant for specific people(the Levites). The pastor is a minister and servant in the church. How else should a pastor feed if not by the tithes? You do not give a tithe expecting that it goes to the needy in the society.

“At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.
Deuteronomy 14: 28 - 29

Are you sure you have a full grasp of the Biblical tithes?

AleXis0r:
I'm glad you know the Levites received tithes. This means tithes were SOLELY for workers(the Levites) in the temple. For the reason that they have devoted their lives to service in the temple.
So, if you pay tithes, you should expect it to be for the ministers and servants in the church, or else why do you pay your tithe?

Firstly, the Levites in the Bible are not the same as modern Church workers or ministers. There is simply nowhere in the Bible that this connection is made.
Secondly, even if we accept your equivocation then you have only made an argument for workers i.e the choir members, the ushers and even the poor widow that cleans the church when nobody is around. Where is their own share of the tithes? You have not made an argument for the so called 'Men of God' to receive tithes since it is clearly not a requirement to be eligible.
Please explain clearly how Men of God are eligible to receive tithes since that was your sole excuse for Oyedepo to receive tithes.
Thanks.

AleXis0r:
Some people just find a job in criticizing men of God. Worst of it is that even the unbelievers condemn them too. The man of God is entitled to tithes and they are SOLELY for his wellbeing. He is not answerable to anyone on how he chooses to spend it. So just keep your mouth shut and do what God has sent you. All those critics have not even done up to 0.001% of Good Works these men of God have.

You say the Man of God is entitled to tithes and yet there were many men of God in the Bible who were not entitled to tithes. For instance, Elijah who is the quintessential Man of God would not have been eligible for tithes as I think he was not a Levite.

So how are modern Men of God eligible to receive tithes?

It is clear from the passage that Jephthah fulfilled his vow by offering his daughter as a burnt offering to Yahweh.

Before one can make sense of this passage, one must understand:
1. the role human sacrifice played in ancient warfare
2. The historical development of the old testament.

But first, let is look at the passage in question.
Judges 11:29: Then the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah... It is clear that Jephthah was guided by the 'Spirit of the Lord', so he was not just some kind of rouge or bad man as some have characterized him. He vow was not as rash as some might think.

Judges 11:30: And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord... Making a vow to one's god in other to secure victory in battle is a common feature of ANE warfare.
To be continued...

gaelllic:
Oh, and yes, the more liberal societies are the more laws they eventually need. USA has the world's largest prison population.

Keep dreaming.

Ah... The USA is certainly not amongst the more liberal societies.

jiggaz:
Another thing you have to understand is that God does not send anyone to hell, men choose to go there. At the second coming of Christ, the unbelievers in the world would have already condemned themselves because when you reject the Gospel of Christ, you are rejecting Eternal life, and when you reject eternal life, you are automatically asking for Eternal Damnation. So you see, Christ does not send anyone to Hell, people chose Hell for themselves.

Rev. 20:15:
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

Sure I guess they just decided to jump into the lake of fire then...

People of Noah's days did not believe Noah until suddenly, the flood came upon them suddenly and destroyed them. So atheists are nothing new, we have seen them before.

Yes, this guy literally believes that god flooded the whole earth and still wants us to worship him.

If you listen carefully, you will hear the footsteps of the Messiah. ...God bless you.

I say you are deluded.

AgentOfAllah:
Hi again.

Thanks for the lesson in definitions. However, I fail to see your point.

I can't offer you any piece of direct evidence for the big bang. Scientific theories depend on both deductive and inductive reasoning. Big bang, due to temporal limitations, is one of those theories that is heavily dependent on inductive evidence. This means there is no direct evidence for it, however, we can observe elements within a body of mutually exclusive facts and by induction, conclude that the Big bang is most probably true. It can however be falsified, and you are invited to falsify it by proving it has insurmountable flaws, and/or proposing a more descriptively compelling theory. Divine orchestration is unacceptable as a scientific answer because it lacks the requisite definitions to make it falsifiable.

As for CMB, do you have any other suggestions/ideas as to what kind of radiation it can be?

As for light, do you have any example(s) in nature that suggest its speed has ever been altered in time?

Please begin to explain! I'm not paying lip service, I'm truly interested in your evidence for this claim. We might just be having a genius in our midst!

Who ever said modern physics is simple? You misunderstand the principle of Occam's razor. It doesn't state that all explanations must be simple, it states that "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected" or, otherwise, "the simplest one should be selected". The simplest explanation is NOT always a simple explanation, it's just the simplest among competing hypotheses. Sure, the big bang theory comes with its body of assumptions, but like I mentioned in my first post, it has helped to explain many of the cosmological phenomena we observe, so we'll continue to carry out research to ascertain the other assumptions, refine the theory or come up with a more robust theory. It's certainly not the end all and be all of scientific theories!

This conflation of atheism with scientism is annoying . I did not need science to become an atheist and I will not need science to remain so.

alchemist13:
When can we start using oaths! Oh oh we should have our own dress code. Personally I will go with anything that has a naked Scarlet Johansson on it

@Seun Seriously, what's wrong with the word "nak3d"

stephenmorris:
lol so atheists are now cultists lol ayaf died

When can we start using oaths! Oh oh we should have our own dress code. Personally I will go with anything that has a naked Scarlet Johansson on it

Pidggin:
Haha you guys make me laugh. I exposed your folly but you had nothing intelligent to say rather you countered my points by quoting a belief system you do not understand

The basis of Christianity is not on science fiction but on the spiritual/supernatural.

I used logical reasoning to expose your folly because this is the premise of your reasoning. Ours goes beyond this. We believe in a pre-existing supernatural being who created the world. You on the other hand cannot use science to explain the existence of spirituality. Why do humans every where believe in something beyond them. Why do we believe in the supernatural? Even remote Indian tribes who have never had contact with the outside world believe in the supernatural, explain this based on scientific reasoning

First of all atheism is not based on science friction. It may surprise you to know that a lot of people become atheists by critical study of their "religion of birth" and/or philosophy than through the knowledge of science.

Have you heard of the [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people] Pirahã people?[/url] These aboriginal people do not even have a concept of god or a supreme being.

According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god,[8] and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made.

malvisguy212:
The bible NEVER say Jephtah sacrifice his daughter or kill her, in fact we are told she went up to the mountain to weep for her virginity for 2 month:


Judges 11:37-38
And she said to her father, “Let this thing be
done for me; let me alone TWO months, that
I may go to the mountains and weep
because of my virginity, I and my companions.” Then he said, “Go.” So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her COMPANION and wept on the mountains because of her virginity.

If she was to be sacrifice, why will she spend her last two month with her friends and not her family ? She cried because she was going to be a virgin the rest of her life. Third, after she had cried for two months she returns to her father to complete the vow.

Judges 11:39
And it came about at the end of two months
that she returned to her father, who did to
her according to the vow which he had
made; and she had no relations with a man.
Thus it became a custom in Israel, that the
daughters of Israel went yearly to
commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the
Gileadite four days in the year.

The sacrifice was her perpetual
virginity. If she was sacrificed, why not say so?
The best way to understand this passage is that she was dedicated to the Lord. She would not marry a man nor would she have children. She would remain a virgin and devote her life to God’s service. same way the virgins in Number 31 were to be dedicated to God.

Right. So you are using child slavery (and possibly sex slavery) to alleviate human sacrifice. #MakesSense

Happy Birthday Ishilove! Queen of Nairaland.

KingEbukasBlog:
In Deut 32:8-9 , God divided all mankind , he gave all nations their inheritance and then chose Israel to be his special people .

How did you arrive at the conclusion that God gave all nations their inheritance from the passage? Let me quote the passage:
Deu 32:8 — Deu 32:9
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
But the Lord's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage. (ESV)

Note that I ams using the ESV version since it is based on the older and more reliable Dead Sea scrolls manuscript rather than KJV which relies on the Masoretic manuscripts. The KJV says that the nations where divided according to the number of the children of Israel, which suffice to say, makes no sense. More on this later.

It is clear from the passage that the nations where divided by the number of the sons of god so as to allocate nations to each of them. This rasies a lot of questions about the theology of Israel in the 11th to 9th century BCE which we shall examine:

• Even if we make the common mistake of claiming Elyon and Yahweh as one and the same, then a straight forward reading would mean that Yahweh is just the head of a pantheon of gods which means that early Israelite religion was monolatrist at best.

• In relation to the fist point, one should wonder how foreign nations should be criticized from serving other gods since it is Yahweh that allocated their gods in the first place!

• Dismissing the conflation of Elyon and Yahweh, it is clear from the passage that, Yahweh is just one of the junior deities receiving his allocated portion that is Israel. Suffice to say, one cannot give himself an inheritance; one can only receive an inheritance or allotment.

KingEbukasBlog:
In Psalm 82 , kings , judges , magistrates were referred to as gods and being among them means that he observes their conduct, and passes sentence upon them accordingly .

In Deut 32:8-9 , God divided all mankind , he gave all nations their inheritance and then chose Israel to be his special people .

Psalm 82 cannot refer to kings, judges etc for the ff reason:

• Elohim literally means god or gods and is only rearly used to refer to human leaders. Therefore for elohim to refer to human leaders there must be clear evidence from the context. So let's examine the context.

• Elohim is said to stand in the midst of the assembly of El. Clearly Elohim is in a prosecutorial role not a Judicial role. So elohim is clearly different and inferior to El.

• Execution of justice is often attributed to gods in the ancient near east. Yahweh is often praised for his justice.

• Note verses 6 and 7. 'Son of the Most High' is often used to refer to junior deities in the Canaanite/Israelite pantheon. Now what is the one thing that all gods have, irrespective of their powers, that all humans don't have?
Immortality! And that is what the protagonist god is threatening the other gods with! Why will the fact that human leaders will die like other men be a threat to them?

Note also that verse 7 says they will die like one of the princes. Are princes not human leaders? Princes become kings and in many cases can act under the authority of their fathers as judges. So this passage cannot refer to humans.

• This passage clearly has Deuteronomy 32 in mind. As a speaker who is clearly a worshiper of the protagonist, urges him to take the responsibility off the other gods and judge the whole earth and inherit the nations.

promisechuks:
This ishmealite will NEVER cease amazing me!

I have trashed this his nonsense fallacy on matt 5:17-18, but honesty can NEVER be found in islam.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)"

This guys will read everything, only to elude the coloured!

Jesus said that nothing will happen to the law, UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED!

Jesus was saying that nothing will be added or removed from the law, UNTIL the point when everything is accomplished then the law can be abolished!

John 19:28;
After this, Jesus, knowing that ALL THINGS WERE NOW ACCOMPLISHED that the Scripture might be
fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”

Everything was accomplished at the cross. And because all has been accomplished, the keeping of the law doesn't give right standing with God anymore and as such abolished.

He is righ you know. According to Matthew, Jesus never came to abolish the Law or start a new religion.

Paul is more or less the founder of Christianity. Do not make the mistake of confusing Matthews' theology with that of John's.

KingEbukasBlog:
While atheists talk crap , we roll with facts .

Hi KingEbukasBlog. I notice you are here but you haven't responded to my latest question in the other thread

KingEbukasBlog:
Thank you bro .

I don't think it was , its more of showing the disparity between God and the gods of other nations .

Thanks once again.

However your answer does not address passages like Deut 32:8-9 which seems to put Yahweh as one of the sons of God to receive an inheritance or portion from the 'Most High'.

I know there is an assumption that Most High and Lord (as translated by most versions) are one and the same but the earliest manuscripts make no such assumption. See Psalm 82

Codedrock:
Anybody seen that Indian movie "PK"?(India's highest grossing film ever) downloaded and watched it last week, it was about religion in India (addressing religion issues of the world), something like this kinda happened at the end.
Fun movie. looks like a deist movie though check it out.

The movie is based on this event.

Hello KingEbukasBlog. I trust you are doing well. I want to know if the official Israelite theology was polytheistic in light of passages like:

Psalms 86:8
There is none like you among the gods, O Lord [Yahweh], nor are there any works like yours.

Psalms 97:9
For you, O LORD, are most high over all the earth;
you are exalted far above all gods.

Deu 32:8 — Deu 32:9
When the Most High [Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
But the Lord's [Yahweh's] portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Debut 32:43
Rejoice with him, O heavens;bow down to him, all gods...

Thanks in advance for your response.

Cc winner01 , Richirich713, scholar8200 , malvisguy212 , Muafrika2 Dejideji1 , truthman2012, Image123 , InesQor, Joshthefirst, MrPresident1, gatiano sukkot, OLAADEGBU , vooks, UyiIredia Jeromejnr

Wait... What?! This is a joke right?

PastorAIO:
4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mark 10:5


“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
Deuteronomy 24:1

According to Jesus Moses wrote laws that were not issued from God but rather were a compromise to the recalcitrant disposition of the Israelites. Yet these laws are part of our God given biblical laws, according to some bibliolaters.
How much of the OT is a directive from God and how much is Moses' own tinkering?

It is amazing how a passage in plain sight can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by most people over centuries, including Jesus apparently.

Perhaps it's Jesus' own misinterpretation (or should I say the author of Matthew's interpretation?) that has lead even the brightest bible student from properly understanding the Deuteronomy passage.

Nevertheless, the passage taken in full context assumes the divorce practice rather than instructs it. The commandment was not about divorce specifically, but about a woman's remarriage eligibility.

It is important to understand the background at play in Matthew: Jesus' and the Pharisees' understanding of the text was based on the Rabbinic Judaism interpretation however wrong it may be.

In conclusion, Moses actually never commands a divorce practice. Who knew that Jesus could ne wrong?

Stevebamdex:
I pity ur ignorance
Arguing with you will prolong issues.keep dwelling in darkness as long as you wish...you are even proud of being a biblical illiterate which is highly satanic .bye !

Funny you should say that. I was just thinking of opening a thread to show just how much ignorant most Christians are of the Bible.

Agnotism. Athiesm. Don't see the difference. Once you start questioning God's existence, then u don't believe he exists.

damiosy:
The one that's available now is core i7,500gb,4gb ram


No 8 pepple street opposite keystone bank computer village ikeja lagos

Thanks for the reply.
I am interested in an ssd laptop.
(see above)

@damiosy
Is this spec available?
Dell xps 13 2015
8 gb ram
256 ssd
Core i5/i7

256ssd,8gb ram

15inch,baclit keyboard

190k

How can I reach you. I am interested in this laptop.

kelechiMarie:
Can anyone please suggest some interesting pop songs or soft rock songs to download and the site where i can download them?
Thanks in advance

Try Slow and Steady by Of Monsters and Men

Of Monsters and Men's Silhouettes

Esdb3:
I called you a fool and will still call you again and again, because the point that 'THAT is ANOTHER BERNARD' can't stick in your grown head. I just showed you different causes of death, yet you are still blabbing. Ok.

First of all Bernard Shaw is a pretty famous person so one would presume you are referring to the one most people know to achieve some effect. This is not an ill informed guess as every other person in your list is famous in their own right; therefore they were used as examples due to their popularity for effect.

Anyway I googled 'Bernard Shaw' and apart from the famous author, another Bernard Shaw exists who is a jounalist, born in 1940, still alive and kicking.

emerich:
Same here, I have also exhausted my 1.5g too, but am still browsing without my airtime being deducted and without necessarily having to on my data before 6am.

please How?

dalaman:
Which history says that the Jews and Egyptians are the oldest people in the universe?

I wonder o! See how people dey display their ignorance.

@op what is d name of your church and pastor?