@doyenn,

doyenn:

I learn very fast when it comes to islamic belief and if anyone here in this house need to know about islam,i am one of those who can assist you.i am not an islamic cleric and i can not even quote from the holy book but what i have heard from scholars with my hear is not and cannot be overlook.

Okay. After you have read the Christian responses so far, coud you take them home and wonder about how it is that the "scholars" didn't show you these stuff before you put up the challenges.

One thing though: since you said that you can assist anyone who needs to know about Islam based on the idea that what you have heard cannot be overlooked, I have a proposition for you. Here:

According to the Qur'an (Sura 19:71), it is clearly stated that EVERY muslim will be made
to ENTER hell fire by an irrevocable decree. Can you please tell me why that has to occur
even though Muslims claim to be following the best religion? Thanks.

doyenn:

there are lots of scores to settle b/w me and the fellow christians.let's start here

Wey you now?

doyenn:

answer those questions first before i continue,u'll soon know who is really doing the right thing

Hope you're coming back to continue what you started.

@Hnd-holder,

Hnd-holder:

Clearly, we pay our TAX in Nigeria to state. The tithe was a form of TAX. Given to the needy, donation to churches are voluntary

This again is another reason why you're getting it wrong about tithing! The Bible does not uphold this idea of tithes being another form of tax as far as giving in spiritual service is concerned.

Hnd-holder:

"As the Church expanded and various institutions arose, it became necessary to make laws which would insure the proper and permanent support of the clergy. The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the [canons] of the Council of Macon in 585."—The Catholic Encyclopedia.

That the Catholic Church adopted the practice of tithing from the Old Law does not mean that their argument for tithing is standard for all Christians who tithe. The Catholic Church has adopted many of their traditions on basis that have no connection to NT teaching; so trying to figure that the Catholic tradition must hold as reason why many argue for tithing is untenable. This again is another reason why I called your attention to a Biblical view of tithes and not doctored articles for a pessimistic treatment of the subject.

How is it that the arguments coming from those opposed to tithing are rather far-fetched; and none of these guys are actually presenting a sound view of what they understand from the Bible concerning the subject?

First, they say tithing is mandatory or forced; whereas that is not true. Then they see tithing as a matter of people stealing in the name of the Lord; which again is not true! Or, again that tithing was never in terms of money but merely a matter of agricultural products; which yet again is not true! Do these fellows have anything to share on what tithing in the Bible really is, and what we are to understand from God's Word on it?

Hnd-holder:

Hebrews 7

7:11 So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood – for on that basis  the people received the law – what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order? 7:12 For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come  as well.

No Family of JESUS ever officiate at the alter

I wonder then what you would have to say about several other NT tenets that no family of Jesus ever officiated. Arguing like this is quite limiting; and it does not help a thorough understanding of the subject we're trying to discuss here.

I'm not one of those who argue in favour of tithing from the Levitical priesthood; and I'm still appealing that we look at the subject in its broad context from Scripture, so that the default pessimistic position often assumed can be set aside and not blur our discussions.

Hnd-holder:

Is that Self justification or a case of birds of a feather. Every one have that free will to pay tithe. In my own I chose NOT TO PAY
The topic once again is "To Tithe or Not to Tithe?" QED

I'm glad you asked. It shouldn't surprise any reader that you have birds of the same feather in your camp applauding your stance on this subject, even though on many occasions your views have actually been flawed.

If you choose not to tithe, you cannot militate against anyone's choice to do so! Your arguments have not dealt fairly with the topic, especially because you have made some very unsubstantiated statements which cannot be defended from God's Word.

It is a weak device to hold on to a narrow idea of the topic, especially because no justification has been advanced in your arguments for any type of giving! When you apply the same arguments against tithing to any other type of giving you read of in the OT or NT, you definetly will come away seeing the huge flaws in your arguments!

@donmayor,
Thank you for sounding that call once again.

Seun:

The New Testament never mentions tithing. Why is this not an issue?

To be sure, it is an issue for discussion; but the NT mentions tithing, to be sure:

Matt. 23:23 Luke 11:42 Luke 18:12 Heb. 7:5, 6, 8, 9.

In these instances, they're not commandments for the NT believer to tithe; but as far as mentioning them is concerned, yes indeed, the NT mentions tithes/tithing.

However, the question should not just be a matter of whether or not we should give/tithe. It is more a matter of how we should understand what any type of giving (including tithing) represents. Once we come round seeing this, most of what have been advanced as arguments against tithing will show up for what they really are: weak.

@Hnd-holder,

Hnd-holder:

Not to tithe is still my point. I support the idea of Giving. Giving is not the topic here.

I can understand the point you've been trying to make; and I can appreciate that. The one simple concern that informs my entering this discussion is this:

we've been narrowing the issue of giving, and therefore have not quite understood why
the arguments often advanced against tithing are the very same arguments that weaken
the justification for any other type of giving!

Once we take the time to see what exactly is the basis for ANY type of giving (including tithing) in the OT and NT, we would have come round understanding why the arguments so far adduced against tithing are mere pessimism (IMHO).

Hnd-holder:

Tithe is by force, it is a law which chritians need not obey but those that use that to steal always made it a condition for GOD blessing.

Okay. There again is another mistake that is often adduced as arguments against tithing. Let me remind you that tithing is NOT by force - and the example I would like you to consider is that of Abraham! The patriarch was NOT FORCED to give tithes of all to Melchizedek! Even the other extreme pessimism of the argument that Abraham gave tithes from what was not his is again another pessimistic idea that fails to carefully read issues.

Tithes are not a matter of forceful, mandatory, coerced, or compelled exercises. This is the one thing I've often asked that we disabuse our minds from and look into Scripture! As long as we take this default position, it will continue to blur issues and produce flawed reeasoning.

donduke:

giving to the poor is not a good replacement to giving too the church and for missions.

Very true. I wonder how many people have actually taken the time to understand why the NT never mixes these types of giving?

salsera:

Who was Ruth's second husband (talk about a woman toasting a man very 21st century I need tips)

Boaz - Ruth 4:13.

-------------

How many sons did Abraham have besides Ishmael and Isaac?

@Hnd-holder,

Hnd-holder:

The old questions again

What is the real message of Malachi’s prophecy for believers today?

Did Paul finance his international ministry through the tithing system?

Is there even one example of Christians paying tithes in the Bible?

Why did Jesus not pay tithes or the Temple tax commanded by the Law of Moses?

Will you or anyone be "cursed with a curse" for not tithing?

The same old questions on giving:

Malachi does have a message to believers today; and if you don't know, it is because you really haven't found out the answer to the fundamental question: what exactly justifies ANY type of giving in the NT?

Did Paul (or any other apostle) finance their ministries by any type of giving system?

What examples are in the NT for Christians who "paid" anything as far as giving is concerned?

Did Jesus condemn tithes at all in the NT?

Will anyone be cursed with a curse for giving or not giving anything?

Hnd-holder:

If God wanted more money in His house, why did Jesus do what He did in the House of God?

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the MONEY changers… and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Matt. 21:12-13).

Jesus reaction in that text is no pretext for denouncing money matters in God's House, the Church. The answer to your question is in that passage you quoted; but notice Jesus was not casting out those that gave tithes! Rather, He "cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple" - and trying to use those verses against tithes/tithing is dribbling round this very question with a weak mechanical device to force-fit it into your argument against tithing.

See the reason why I said earlier: mirror your arguements against any other type of giving and see if you pass the test! It is so convenient to argue against tithing; but so far, I haven't read any sound reasoning on this questions from those opposed to it. Rather, you gentlemen continue to misread texts and suppose that your default arguments against tithes fits all and every case. Please settle down and try not misreading issues out of context!

@Hnd-holder,

Why is the very question on giving such a puzzling one? I offered that question because it only confirms that while it is convenient to argue against tithing (a type of giving), those in opposition have never tried to look at the broad spectrum of what they've been arguing against.

I'm sure that when we look at the arguments against tithing and try to hold those arguments against any other type of giving, then the real issues of our hearts begin to emerge. This is why it seems to me that those opposed to tithing are quite frequently reluctant to face up to the question of what exactly justifies the other types of giving that they favour in the NT.

Again, once we lay down our pessimism against the question of tithes and rather look into the Bible, answers will be proffered. But as long as any one takes a default position to argue against tithes without first examining the whole picture from Scripture itself, then we don't get any wiser for arguing against what we really haven't grasped. Which is why I really wonder in the flawed views you offered earlier as seeing the Church interpreted as "the true Israel".

Great stuff. Perhaps you should have posted them so they're accessible to readers without having to wait for anyone to write to your email addy before using the same tools.

@ricadelide,

I just tire for certain things we read coming from certain quarters. Only God go help us in our times.



@donnie,

Following on from my rejoinder yesterday, I took time to go back and study all the references you used in your arguments; and I'm sorry to say you've got them all muddled up.

donnie:

Paul very often used the term Christ as He did not get to know and relate with the man Jesus as the other apostles did, except through the annointing; but he knew and was very familiar with that presence of Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit. That revelation though, was most sufficient and far more exceeding in glory.

Trying to make Jesus any less than Himself is a sad adventure. Was it not the same Paul who wrote to Timothy and used the term 'the man Christ Jesus'? "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5).

Does anyone have to be acquainted with Jesus as "man" before such a person could understand that Jesus is the Christ? Then what about Apollos, of whom we read in Acts 18:28 that, "he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ"? I don't remember having read anywhere in Scripture that Apollos knew and related with 'the man Jesus as the other apostles did'.

Not only so, but the same Paul was well acquainted with the humanity of Jesus even though he was an apostle of late arrival among the other apostles. Long after his conversion, Paul was heard saying: "that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ" (Acts 17:3; see also ch. 18:5). This is consistent with what the other apostles who knew Jesus in their humanity declared in their epistles: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him" (I John 5:1).

donnie:

Quote form Telly B:
Two things you would have to understand here, my dear donnie. The Holy Spirit is quite consistent in His manifestations;

I beg to disagree. The Holy Spriit is not consistent in His manifestaions

There again, you got it wrong, donnie. The Holy Spirit is consistent in His manifestations, however He chooses to manifest Himself. So is the Father; as well the Son. If there is no consistency in the manifestations of the divine Persons of the Godhead, you would have an inconsistent body of doctrines which would otherwise further your flawed views.

Consistency does not contradict diversity. The manifestations of the Holy Spirit are diverse; but nonetheless, they are consistent. In the NT where the manifestations of the Holy Spirit are given, we read the confirmation of this point:

1 Cor. 12: (4) Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
(5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
(6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God
which worketh all in all. (7) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given
to every man to profit withal. - - -

(11) But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to
every man severally as he will.

When you read of the various manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the OT, you will find the same message of His being consistent. He does not contradict Himself in any way; though His manifestations may be diverse.

It is because many people have supposed that the Holy Spirit is not consistent in His manifestations, that is why they have allowed just about any type of supernatural manifestation into the Christian testimony and then called it the work of the Spirit.

@Hnd-holder,

I've made inputs to the point that the arguments in opposition have not been addressing the core concerns of this debate. Nobody is feeding fat on any so-called tithes; and to maintain that idea again and again is to say the very same thing against any type of giving you may read in the NT.

Aside from my rejoinder to your recent post that deviates from the "the right lane" on this topic, I've asked yet another question: what actually justifies the argument in favour of any other type of giving at all in the NT? I'm not reading answers to that from you; and I think it's a bit tiresome now to hold on to the idea that people should keep to the topic while you have not been doing that very thing.

Hnd-holder:

They will do everything possible to maintain their stand.

I do hope that you're not doing everything to maintain your stand against tithes. I'm requesting answers from the Bible; not arguments from mere pessimism.

Cheers.

@Horus,

What has Yashu'a done for YOU?

mrmayor:

Listen up. Crusaders and Mujahadeens,I want a good clean fight, No Mercy.Lets the yabbing started.

You're such a crack!

@Kuns,

Kuns:

Firstly, Mr bari Kade it is ignorance to assume

I agree; but I'm really sorry if you're doing exactly that and don't even realize it.

Kuns:

You only have to pick up a dictionary to see how many derogatory words (Black phrases) are associated to word Black and look up the word white and see how many good thing that relates too. don't believe me, get a dictionary and check it out for yourself. Some reseach could be helpful if you are looking for truth (facts).

If you actually have picked up the same dictionary to look up words in those connotations, you will come away surprised at the lie that black people have enslaved themselves with for centuries. It is even sadder that these same self-enslaved black minds deliberately confuse themselves with their phonetic re-engineering of various words; and yet they'll cry hooha when such words are applied to them.

Kuns:

Are you still eating pork? Do you know how many diseases are associated with pork and ham based products. Emmm ,  that's really really one of the filthiest things you could eat,  imagine eating fried dog, cat and rat ,  well, that's what the swine is. How low could you get?

First, I'm not dead from all the "filthiest things" you dread - which could be evidence of my freed mind from your enclaved mind? Second, there's no connection with eating dog, cat, and rat in ham - so you could as well throw that mechanical device of another lie out the window. It's appalling that you guys can no longer tell yourselves simple truth: is it that bad now with your clique?

Kuns:

You still have not addressed the topic of this posting yet, all you have been doing is arguing and like I said in the beginning "the devil loves too argue" ,   It seems you are too busy trying to defeat the religious beliefs of your former slave/colonial masters than making any
worthwhile addition to the reasons why there are so many denominations in all these religions of the world today. Why So Many Denominations?

I had to sit back and laugh at your sobbing!   My responses are in correspondence to your posts; so if you have tried to defeat religious beliefs and have found your failure unbearable, why the sobbing? Scroll back and see that some have tried to proffer answers to the topic before you came with your deflections. Only losers whimper the way you do.

Kuns:

Those people born mostly before 1970 A.D have conformed with the system, these people have a slave mentality, enticed of going to heaven by a feel good story (tales and myths) of someone who loved them and died for them and all they have to do is believe is this person to gain enter into paradise where there will peace forever more, well, this is not what the book of Revelation which was given to Jesus said in Revelation 12 : 7 where it talks of war in heaven, these people think they are free and they are correct, their bodies are free, but their souls are not.

There spheres of heaven, as we read in Deut. 10:14 - "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is."

That there was war in heaven in Rev. 12:7 does not mean that the promise Christ made to believers is thereby nullified. "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2).

Kuns:

Jesus was told not to establish a new religion but to follow the religion of Moses. Refer to Matthew 5 : 17, 18 and I quote

"17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ".

Also in John 1 : 17 and I quote

": For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ". Basically he is saying that he has not come to destroy the law of the prophets."

Why did you stop at the highlighted quote and not try to elucidate the inference that Jesus gave concerning His fulfilling the Law and the prophets? This is how many people try to cheat on their pretended scholarship; and I do hope you'd not continue to slave onto that fallacy.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the prophets in His earthly ministry; and when He rose from the dead, He reminded His disciples of the same thing:

Luke 24:44 -- "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Having said that, He consequently commissioned His disciples with this command: "And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (vs. 46-47)

So, what then are you trying so desperately to pretend against Christianity?

Kuns:

Muhammad was also told not to establish a new religion but to follow the religion of Abraham. Refer to Koran 22 : 77

"He has elected you, and has not put upon you any hindrance by your religion,-the faith of your father Abraham."

My dear Kuns, I'm not a Muslim - and I'm one of those debating issues with Muslims as I'm engaging in this one with you in your attempt to confuse issues for yourself and your adulators.

Kuns:

If Jesus or Muhammad returned today they would not recognise what people are doing in their names. so many demonisations (denominations) why?

Kuns, I've asked you to look up your name in the same matrix from which you pandered the 'demonisations'. What does Kunle and Kuns mean when the results come out as "Procyon lotor"?? If you're going to be fair and in debate, I'll oblige you; but if you choose to be deliberately racist and mischievous, I'll try and bring you round what your name means every single time your silly antics surface on the threads.

Kuns:

Peaxy ,   people are not following the commandments or wishes of Jesus or Muhammad, that's why there are many denominations (demonisations) within the different religions as well. The question "So Many Denominations"" is the sort of question Jesus would ask if he returned. Maybe he doesn't like attitude of these so-called Christians caught up in today organised belief system that's why he hasn't come yet. The caucasian and their black pet are still teaching that Jesus died 2000 years ago. When in actuality it is almost 2008 year ago ,  they are full of beliefs, no facts and where there is no facts there is no true religion.

Ok peaxy, you can applaud Kuns now for misleading you further into your dark zone. At least, if he suceeds in recruiting you to his defeatist racist regime, Christians will go on living a life free from racism as often expressed in the sobs of these weak gentlemen.

Kuns:

Those peoplpe born after 1970 A.D have a different spirit they can see things don't add up and they ask questions, the older generation are hard at hearing.
These people ask question Matthew 7 : 7 [b]A[/b]sk and it shall be ,  [b]S[/b]eek and it ,  [b]K[/b]nock and it shall be open Jesus is basically telling you to ask question, check things out. However, these believers of today, have been though by there colonial masters not to ask any question giving them hopes,  promises of miracles and wait and see to bind (tie up their soul and mind) them.

The last time I checked, black racist themselves are too scared to be confronted by their own questions; let alone try to proffer answers to those being offered them from others.

Kuns:

With all the information out there today in Museums, archeological evidence, Books ,  So people don't read anything out bible and religious christian books ,  once they graduated from University and start working ,  they rely on the Mass Media to educate them. So they are confined with the walls of a 6000 years old or 2000 year old when there is evidence of advanced civilisation of human life going back millions of years.

It's amazing that with that much advancement in civilization, you guys are still enslaved by the blame-game drama that has lasted about 500 years now (according to one of your apologists). Sad, sad and sadder still if you can't unshackle yourself from that poison.

By the way, I've noticed that it's very difficult for you guys to really locate your center when debating issues. You must of necessity make reference to your complaints about your phobia - the black racist sentimentality of dread for other skin colour! I shake my head at you guys, because while you're deceiving yourself about what the white man has done to you, blacks are busy killing themselves on African soil without the white man's help. Just one example will do: please go ask Mugabe!!

Kuns:

kade you don't have to believe me, why don't you go and read a David Icke book or something ,  since you look up to cauasians. He'a a renowned Cauasian author ,  maybe you would listen to the facts that he discloses. As some black people only listen to cauasians.

Too bad you feel I only listen to caucasians. Who's been paying any attention to what your own black brothers are doing to their own people all by themselves in Zimbabwe? In Haiti? In Jamaica? No, I didn't learn this from any caucasian - there are there and well documented by black journalists!! The hypocrisy of seeing everything evil as coming from caucasians is sickening - you self-inflicted black racist slaves have to open your eyes and come back home to African and face your own problems!

I'm black, thank you; but I'm resolutely AGAINST ALL expressions and sentiments of RACISM!! If you keep shlepping this racist sentiments in your debates, then you're not better than a white racist who hates blacks.

Horus:

It is sad that you people cannot accept the truth. Truth is truth! You have been programmed to accept things as they come and you are content with just knowing the basics of religion, you don’t even dare question the validity of their teachings. Stop being so lazy, and research. Question their logic. Find out the truth for yourself.

Good advice for you, Study and Horus. Stop being lazy and research the ignorance of the racist websites from where you've been slaving your ideas. Question their logic and find out the truth for yourself.

Now, let's look at this one and then proffer a question for you both:

Horus:

It’s clear, if you just take time to research you will see that you are following Paul (the Deceiver) and not Yashu’a (Jesus).

So Horus, since you do not follow Paul, do you follow Yashu'a (Jesus)? And what has Jesus done for YOU?

There's a word for fellas like you who pretend to possess what they call truth but actually do not apply such truth in their own lives: hypocrisy. Now that's even more sinister than being lazy.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/41147_peaceful_muslims_jpg3e3164477b1cc08a7c6396ad0d212929

To those gentlemen of JAMIAT TALABA ARABIA: I hope you have read the Qur'an well enough? This is why I'm not surprised at all by such reactions, because this is what Muhammad said of the Arabians:

The arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy,
and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down
to His Messenger. But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.

--- Yusuf Ali Translation of Sura 9:97

@donnie,

After going through your responses to earlier posts, I'd like to comment on areas where I deeply feel you accentuating the flaws in your reasoning:

donnie:

1 cor 10:4 is not sufficient reference to prove that there were manifestaions of Jesus in the Old testament.

That is not reason enough to suppose that Jesus was never manifested in the OT. He did so, especially in what we have come to understand as the theophanies. Just a case in point, please read John 12:41 - "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." Could I ask you: whose glory did Isaiah see; and of whom did Isaiah speak?

donnie:

Firstly, i will like to correct the idea that all references to the Word Christ in scripture refer to the man Jesus.
Studying your bible, you will find that the Word Christ was sometimes used to refer to the Church as in:

Acts 4:26
The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

Not true in the case cited above. Acts 4:26 does not point to the Church as "Christ" - first, because no NT writer ever confused the reference for "Christ" as pointing to the Son of God.

Second, in context Acts 4:26 was particularly in reference to the Lord Jesus --

(24) And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord,
and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea,
and all that in them is: (25) Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said,
Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

(26) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against
the Lord, and against his Christ. (27) For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom
thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people
of Israel, were gathered together, (28) For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel
determined before to be done.

You can see that it was rather against God's holy child Jesus (vs. 27) that the rulers had gathered! Please donnie, try not further misreading issues out of context so that we may be strongly persuaded that you have a good grasp of what you try to debate. All the references for Christ point to Jesus; and not one could be confused to mean the Church (Please see again Rev. 11:15).

donnie:

Sometimes, to The man Jesus and at other times, to the annointed one and his the annointing as in:

Philippians 4:13
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me( notice here the use of the word which instead of who).

Again, the reference to the Lord Jesus. That is uses "which" instead of "who" does not deflect from the fact that Christ refers to Jesus.

There are other verses in the NT where such language constructs use "which" instead of "who" in our English Bibles to speak of personalities:

1 John 3:24 - And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him,
and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us,
by the Spirit which he hath given us.
("the Spirit which"; and not "the Spirit who"

Jude 1:6 - "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day." (notice: the angels which; and not the angels who)

3 John 1:5 & 6 - "Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the
brethren, and to strangers; Which have borne witness of thy charity before
the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort,
thou shalt do well"

1 Pet. 1:15 - "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner
of conversation"

The reference to Christ in Phil. 4:13 points to none other than to Jesus; and the pronoun "which" should not be used as the article of confusing and misinterpreting that verse.

@davidylan,

davidylan:

@ doyenn, many like you have come purporting to be merely "asking questions" only to disappear as soon as the fraud of islam has been exposed. If you want to start a fire make sure you are prepared to take the heat too!

Perhaps, that sould have read: "If you want to start a fire, gather much firewood - and dry ones that burn quickly so that there's not much smoke!" 


@doyenn,

I'm wondering what you were trying to "prove" by opening this thread. You called them "challenges" - but it's rather turning to a circus that you disappeared when Christians showed up! Is that another episode to nyabinghi's drama of developing cold feet? 

doyenn:

.5) is there any verse in the bible where jesus refer himself as son of God or even God

Yes - and davidylan has given you some. In addition, here are a few verses that you should never forget:

JOHN 10:36  -- Jesus said:
"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

       John 9: (35)  Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found
       him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

       (36)  He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? (37)  And
       Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
       (38)  And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

       John 19:7  The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought
       to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

       Mark 14: (61) But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest
      asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? (62)  And
      Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,
      and coming in the clouds of heaven.

       Matt. 27:43  He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him:
       for he said, I am the Son of God.

I hope you can see them now? Cheers. 

I've observed that a Muslim usually quotes three cliches in debates:

(a) at the beginning of a debate: "show the proof if you're truthful!"

(b) at the middle of a debate: "truth has come; falsehood is bound to perish!"

(c) when he's unable to prove his grounds on (a) and (b), he says:
     "your religion to you; and mine to me!"


Now, if we work these cliches backwards from (c) to (a), where are the muslims who are willing to ask the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding these questions:

(c) which of the religions between Christianity and Islam do you practise?

(b) where is the 'truth' in the perishing al-Taqiyya that merges both religions on being African American or on the basis of being feminine?

(a) what proof does she hold out for the deception of wearing a cloak on Sunday and wearing a black headscarf on Friday?


More importantly, does any Muslim have anything to show as to where Islam teaches that one could be both a Muslim and Christian at the same time?

@Study,

It didn't take very long to see that you fall into the same accusation that you have alleged against the apostles of Christ.

Study:

I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I study what he says and I follow THAT. If I read words pertaining to God, I compare them to the words of Christ for reproof. I don't care what the name of the man doing the talking is I am only interested in how it lines up with the word of God.

Now what does Scripture say?

Matt. 7:20 - "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

How are you ever going to recognize a true apostle if all you care for is what they teach or say but not how they lived their lives? Here is what the Word teaches:

Heb. 13:7 - "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith."

Trying to present the apostles (especially Paul) as false prophets simply demonstrates that you're the very same thing that you accuse against them. Take a hint: false prophets are characterized by this one mark: they pretend to follow Christ while denying His word as taught by His apostles. The test for such false prophets is this:

1 Cor. 14:37 - "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

                 Do you acknowledge that, or you do not?

If you have made up your mind before you examined the facts, then it is no surprise that you're confusing issues for yourself in God's Word.

The love of God.

Rom. 5:8 - "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

This love never dies; does not grow weak; is still available to everyone; and is the foundation of our worship in thankfulness to the One who is LOVE.

@TV01,

Let me remind you once again: inspite of the over 900 posts on this thread and other kindred threads discussing the same topic, there is very little persuasion coming from those arguing against tithing. More than anything, again and again, the appeal is often from far-fetched ideas that only weaken such arguments.

Which brings me to the repeated query: what infact justifies any type of financial giving in the NT at all if tithing is so much a bane to those opposed to it?

That some have tried to reach a concensus does not mean that such concensus is/are actually demonstrating what Scripture teaches. And that is why I've expressed these concerns of late that such arguments in opposition to tithing have not even justified their arguments for any type of NT giving!

When I read seasoned arguments addressing these issues, perhaps then I would be in a better position to share what we all have been missing.

Cheers.

Dear Hnd-holder,

Let me exemplify why I feel that arguments of the kind you offer are actually not answers to my core concerns.

Hnd-holder:

How then, under the New Covenant, does a believer give a tenth, when he is supposed to give his all
(Rom. 12:1), to a priesthood that does not exist, but now he himself is part of a priesthood (I Peter 2:9),

This is a classic example of the kind of roundabout statements that I have tried to draw your attention to. If a priesthood does not exist, the believer under the New Covenant does not even belong to one. You can't make a statement and then contradict it in the same breath.

Hnd-holder:

at a temple that does not exist (Mat. 24:1-2),
but rather he himself is the temple wherein God dwells.

In which case, probably a believer then should not give at all. It is not just a question of whether or not there is a temple before one decides to give; the question is whether or not one should tithe (or give) at all.

When you kept reminder readers and contributors about the topic of the thread and you go spinning off the topic yourself, I don't suppose you're asking for good answers but mere arguments for its sake.

Hnd-holder:

No longer do we have priests with spiritual infirmities interceding for us, but rather we have Christ Jesus as our perfect intercessor and High Priest seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens (Heb. 7:28-8:1).
At this time in history, Israel owes no tithe to anyone. And, of course, we who are a new creation and the true Israel of God--Gal. 6:16 were never instructed to tithe in the first place.

Two things here that are deeply flawed.

(a) tithes and giving were not predicated on the intercessory work of priests - that would make it sound like the OT encouraged the same roguery you complain against;

(b) Gal. 6:16 does not teach that the Church is the true Israel of God! The Church does not displace Israel, and you only have to look again at other texts to see this:

I Cor. 10:33 - "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God"

Rom. 11: (1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, (3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (4) But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

(2)5 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

There is no warrant in Scripture for miscontruing the Church as the "true Israel" - perhaps, that is why so many ideas expressed are still missing the gist.

As I said earlier, there are still very serious flaws in the arguments advanced so far; and rather than the default position of arguing against "tithes" by referring to peppered ideas and doctored articles, what is Scripture saying about this very issue?

Gentlemen,

I suppose my enquiries are straightforward and should not be hard to decipher.

To tithe or not to tithe is by extension to ask another question: "to give or not to give"?

Since tithing is a matter that is always to be argued against, what then is the precedence to argue in favour of any type of giving in the Bible at all - OT and/or NT?

I still haven't read any substance in your arguments at all; and the same default human passions are still being offered as if those are the main reasons against tithing. Please, if you guys really have answers from God's Word, I'm all yours. But the latest efforts I've read so far are not actually answers to the core questions I've tried to offer.

Regards.

I saw that report some days ago; and like many others, I pondered about this question:

      Is it possible to be a Christian and Muslim at the same time?

Not only does political correctness allow just about anything under the sun these days, it simply allows the rational to be as beclouded as can possibly be. Does it surprise anyone that the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding doesn't even know why she became a Muslim?

For those Muslims who would be very quick to applaud this crack on the pavement, let me even ask: what does Islam say about people confessing to being Muslim but at the same time being Christian or adherents of any other religion at the same time?

Just incase you're wondering about how far this political correctness stretches itself, there are people who are making all sorts of claims today. Believe it or not, the following link where I first read about the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding also carries another claim of someone loudly proclaiming:

       I'm a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Taoist. . . and atheist!

    http://mysticsaint..com/2005/06/im-muslim-hindu-christian-jew-buddhist.html

And I have no hesitation to say to all other religion that I belong to them as well.
They are all my beloved brother and sisters as One God's creation. . . And all the atheist
are my brothers and sisters as well. They also have a different path to seek the Knowledge.


  (Rev. Ann Holmes Redding: http://mysticsaint..com/)

People, the message today is just this: you don't have to THINK anymore!

If anyone becomes fundamentalist merely because they don't like what people say about their religion, then that goes a long way to demonstrate how much peace such people preach but really don't possess.

@Hnd-holder,

I appreciate the articles you offered just above on Governmental collection of religious offerings.

However, how does that answer the question from a Biblical perspective on tithing and giving being argued for and against?

Hnd-holder:

We shall supply more prove that today noise about tithe is just stealing by method.

I think the same argument could be adduced for any other type of giving you read of in the Bible - OT or NT. It is just as pointed to ask: to give or not give? And then the same roundabout argument all over again.

The thing is this: if anyone can argue against tithing, they should be prepared to argue also against any other type of giving. So far, I haven't read a sound persuasion on the real essence of NT giving from those arguing merely against tithing.

@TV01,

TV01:

I think in keeping with my current position of no ensoulment prior to the body/spirit union, I can't say I believe in the existence of a soul after the dissolution of same.

I don't remember the Bible speaking of a dissolution of the soul. Or, perhaps you meant the dissolution (decay) of the body? In which case, I'd say that the few verses I've studied on this point persuade me to believe that the soul survives death.

TV01:

The body decays, the spirit returns to God who gave it. Surely at best the soul sleeps, until such tiome as there is a ressurection?

'Sleep' is also used as a biblical term to sometimes mean 'death'. It would seem that man is described as 'sleeping' while in a state of death - as in the case in John 11:11 ('These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep').

In such contexts, sleep simply would be pointing to being dead - but it does not give the idea that the soul 'sleeps' (in the sense of soul-sleep); nor does it in just that occurence describe all that happens to the soul after death.

Thanks for your understanding; and please pardon my being a bit forward. Cheers.

@Kuns,

Kuns:

Kuns is a abbreviation of the Yoruba name Ade[b]kun[/b]le, which meaning that the House is full of crowns. People make words, people make culture, the people's name tell you of their culture. To the Caucasians anything black is bad and white is good.

First, it is for the same reason of 'people make words' that I asked that you check the word generating matrix of the guys whose redundant articles you're reposting here. I'm not going to push this issue; but again, please type in "Adekunle" and see what the matrix gives you. If you can't find it, ask them. I bet you: 9 chances out of 10, they won't tell you what you need to know! But it is there all the same, and you won't like what the matrix makes of you.

Second, it's amazing that in this age and space, you're still holding to that defeatist fallacy that Caucasians regard anything black as bad! That is simply not true. Please see this very interesting post by stimulus to solve this problem for you:

         https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-56744.0.html#msg1173945

You don't have to slave on to another "black" lie in order to "prove" your phobia for Caucasians.