₦airaland Forum

[b]@iconic s
you erred in your statements below sir,because it seems that you did not understand them or maybe it was deliberate,but then its been laid bare;

iconic s quote;

Again Abraham didn't pay tithes from the spoils cos he returned all the spoil to the king of sodom, except what the men eat and took (Gen14:21-24).

you cleverly omit verse 20 of Genesis 14,but starts from 21-24. that act alone is misleading,pls go and stop that.
now read verse 20 that you omitted,at least for the sake of onlookers;

Genesis 14:18-20
New Living Translation (NLT)
20 And blessed be God Most High,
who has defeated your enemies for you.”
Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the goods he had recovered..


And to throw more light on same issue;
Hebrews 7
King James Version (KJV)
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham [size=14pt]gave the tenth of the spoils.[/size]

iconic s quote;

Again Jacob vowed a vow that if God will fulfill the abrahamic convenant with him, that he will give "the tenth" of all that God shall give him

you quoted (Gen 28:20-22). to back up your claim above,but unfortunately,it does not support your claim,[size=14pt]jacobs vow is 'only about his journey' 'and not' about the covenant sir [/size].read yourself below;

(Gen 28:20-22).
20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying,[size=14pt] If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God:

22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will[i] surely give the tenth [/i]unto thee.[/size]

jacobs 'seek protection' from God to embark on a journey, and safely comes back to still meet the sign or stone or pillar he set.

I say nowhere in verse 20-22 of Gen 28 make mention of 'covenant' as you claimed.[/b]

@iconic s,
[size=14pt]why do you muddle things up here,
how is melchizedeck 'a type' of 'christ'and to what 'what extent'?
[/size]
iconic s quote;

Abraham paid tithes to melchizedec (Heb 7:1-10) [size=14pt]who is a type of Christ.[/size]

[b]@iconic s,
can you kindly save us these 'conclusions' below in your comments;

The bible talks about those "ever learning but never comming to the knowledge of the truth", but this is not as sad as another portion that says some "have their understanding darkened".

And let me ask you,Does Gods covenant with Abraham includes 'tithing' outside the law,pls supply us with bible verses to that effect.
Or as at the time when Abraham gave a tenth of spoils,has he (Abraham) received the covenant? or does his act of a one time 'gift offering' to Melchi constititute a part of the covenant?

you cannot incorporate a 'tithe practice' previously shared with pagan as a practice then INTO 'a covenant'made with Abraham,thank God,that the time that God had this covenant with Abram preceeds Abrams meeting Melchi,
and jacobs own tenth part was purely not based on any standard but only 'on vow'.
now,how can s'one pay a vow offering and still pay tithes,'DOUBLE STANDARD'.
And remember that tithes is meant 'only to be received' ON INCREASE,that is if there is no increase,no tithe.thats why on the sabbatical year,the seventh yr,a whole 12 month,tithe will not be paid or given,
so the load is not even burdensome.
And to cap it all,jesus said my yoke is light.
Answer the above questions on point pls, thanks. [/b]

@image123,

we are awaiting your response to a querry raised at you earlier, and seriously we need clarifications i mean an answer 'on point' see the quote below 'bolded';

In that case i think [size=14pt]we need to go back to Goshen's question you dodge where he was asking why you don't follow Abraham's example of letting the Pharaoh have his wife or his example of sacrificing rams[/size](which muslims still follow today). Are you not the one guilty of cherry picking which example of Abraham to follow?

Also your quote below,does it show a 'respect' to the 'holy scripture'? when there was no other information regarding tithing from abraham until the innauguration of the law covenant empowers the levites to receive tithes as 'inheritance' till it ended on the cross,you have not supplied any bible verse to counter the claim,but dismissed the information supplied by the bible as 'unreliable or unacceptable'to you, judge yourself on how you have reffered to the bible below (bolded);
quote;image123

When you say Abraham's tithe was a one-off and that Abraham gave tithe just once, that's an assumption. [size=14pt]The Bible is not Abraham's biography, [/size]

[color=#006600[i]]pls aknowledge these scriptures below and 'honestly' evaluate your comments[/i][/color];

Deuteronomy 4:2

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

Revelation 22:18

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,

Helpful Not Helpful
Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

now compare these with your view in quote below;
image123 quote;

It's like it math, when you see and understand an example, you can use the style a million times, classwork, homework, test, assignment, forever. That's the purpose of an example. You see a method of healing, and apply it to a dozen people in scores of ages, in different places. There's a verse in Luke ithink, about Jesus rising early to pray. Millions have built a 'quiet time' practice around it and it works for them. Spiritual principles are usually unto you according to your faith.

we are awaiting your response,to clarify the 'cherypicking' scam expecially many people who dont read bible themselves before are watching your answers and let me give you the benefit of doubt,so dont disappoint or dodge the questions,because many are interested,sorry its not personal, cheers. waiting plsssssss.

@snowwy,

a scripture tells us our High priest is a priest after the order of another priest who himself received tithes, then I don't think tithe being received or given is not having a better understanding of the message.

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN TOLD TO DESIST FROM USING 'AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIEDECK' WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POINT ON THE TITHE,NEITHER DOES IT EMPOWER YOU ANY EXTRA RIGHT OUTSIDE THE NULIFICATION OF THE LEVI PRIESTHOOD ON THE CROSS.
YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT CHRIST PRIESTHOOD 'AFTER THE ORDER'MEANS WILL BE SIMILAR;'LIKE FOR LIKE' OR 'RESEMBLE'THAT OF MELCHIDEDECH WHO DOUBLED AS KING-PRIEST,SAME WAY JESUS PRIESTHOOD (after the order)WILL 'RESEMBLE' MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD,AND IT HAPPENED WHEN JESUS WAS DECLARED 'KING OF KINGS'AND A 'PRIEST FOREVER',ANYTHING OUTSIDE THIS FORMULATED AS A 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHIZEDECK'THAT EMPOWERS FRAUD IS TOTALLY NOT SUPPORTED IN THE BIBLE,
BUT WAS CONCUCTED USING 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'

Especially if Jesus said tithe should NOT be left undone.

SNOWWY, ARE YOU A JEW? DO YOU YOU RECEIVE YOUR OWN GRACE BEING A JEW? SO WHEN JESUS WAS CASTING WOE TO PHARISEES FOR PAYING TITHES,DOES IT APPLY TO YOU WHO IS NOT A JEW? AND IT ENDED AFTER JESUS DEATH. 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'.

[b]Below are some extract from the advocates of 'priesthood order of melchizedeck' on this topic,(Wordtalk,Garyarnold and joagbaje) who derived their authority from 'unproven priesthood order' of melchizedeck,thereby some of them,apart from garyarnold used this to support their claim for the continuation of tithes,after the levitical priesthood annulment.

it will be noted that, they do not have an agreed defination,is God the Author of confussion? 1cor 14:33

their definanations are personal and selfish,borne out of 'dead technicalities'of law and philosophies,thereby their reasonings (whys or ifs) if followed, makes the whole bible itself and inspired book of God looks foolish,but then, apostle paul gave us a hint as to how to understand the scripture,outside selfish dead technicalities he said in;

1cor 1:21

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God,it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe

lets see their contradictions below;

1# wordtalk:

There are not two separate 'priesthoods' - just one. It is called the priesthood AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek. Even Christ is the High Priest of our profession, He is still bearing that priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. It does not mean two separate or different 'priesthoods'.

I've long taken a stand: I'm for Christ who is MADE a priest AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek.

so wordtalk admitted to 'own a pesonally different stand'on this issue,as reflected in the last line above.while wordtalk says 'there are no two separate priesthoods'
lets compare it with Garyarnold


2# Garyarnold

“AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEC”

“after” G2596 - A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time)
“order” G5010 - regular arrangement, that is, (in time) fixed succession (of rank or character)

We are talking about the order; i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Two comes after one.

IF Melchizedec Was The First, After The Order Of Would Constitute The Second. Since The Levitical Priesthood Was Disannulled (Hebrews 7:1 , That Means It Is Treated As Though It Never Was. Therefore, The Priesthood Of Christ Comes After That Of Melchizedec. I Believe It Is As Simple As That.

Garyarnold disagrees with wordtalk,(both advocates of 'unproven'priesthood order of melchizedeck) he even went on to explain the extent of the separate priesthood order, that if; Melchizedec Was The First, After The Order Of Would Constitute The Second.

to compound the whole issue, br joeagbaje came with what i can term as 'very rude' approach to the scripture,further confirm what paul termed as how the so called 'worlds wisdom did not know God' but it pleased God 'through the foolishness of the message'(foolishness to the worlds wisdom) preached to save those who believe,if not can anybody just help me to explain the meaning of 'intrusion' below(bolded letters);

3# joagbaje

Re: Tithes, Offerings And First Fruits - Do They Apply To Us As Christians? by Joagbaje(m): 17 days & 9 hours


Will you nullify the word of God. Before the law there was Melchizedek order. When the law came ,there was levitical order for a period. Many high priest functioned under the order of levitical priest hood. Now that it has ended we are back to Melchizedek order In which Jesus function. that means the Order never ended. It has always been . The levitical was only an intrusion. This is the real order.

its not personal, but if we choose to drop our pride,and accept what the bible teaches outside 'dead technicalities'according to according to christ,but not according to 'philosophies of men, only then we can appreciate the teachings of the bible.
cheers.[/b]

[size=14pt]'all scripture' are 'God breathed'and inspired,and not 'part scriptures'.[/size]
2 timothy 3:16,17.

[b]@wesley80,

[size=18pt]your kind dribble is awesome
[/size]
Firstly,going through the posts,you erred blatantly 'by refusing to obey the rules of the topic,that is you 'must show us scriptural bible backing of any assertions you claim.
your quote below;

nothing could be further from the truth. You should draw a distinction between "gift of the spirit" and "fruit of the spirit". [size=14pt]Speaking in tongues is a FRUIT of the spirit[/size] therefor compulsory for Christians, anything less is choosing to live less than you've been called to.

After failing to back your assertion that 'Speaking in tongues is a FRUIT of the spirit' then someone help to put you on track,by quoting below;

Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

These i know are the fruits of the spirit. Speaking in tongues is not listed.

Now,what are you supposed to do as a christian?
see your reaction below;

Yeah, I knew someone would pick on those. But u should understand that what he listed in Gal 5:22-23 isnt an exhaustive list of the fruits of the spirit

Having aknowledged that you have your lies have been exposed, instead of 'throwing in the towel'you choose a seemingly destructive path,'to add to the inspired scriptures' now just see the consequencies below;

" Proverbs 30:5-6
"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.[size=14pt] Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.[/size]

Revelation 22:18-19
"[size=14pt]If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life,[/size] from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

hear yourself below, you started quoting 'out of context'by splitting the scriptures,choosing a,and rejecting b.
note that 'all scripture' are 'God breathed'and inspired,and not 'part scriptures'.

Now what did Paul actually mean by 'Divers kind of tongues'? For that I refer u to[size=14pt] 1st Corinth 13:1a[/size] where he says 'though i speak with the tongues of men and angels', Please get the distinction. Tongues of men here refers to 'divers tongues' which rightly is a gift from God while tongues of Angels refers to speaking in tongues which is a fruit of the Spirit and not necessarily a gift. Paul could very well have listed 'speaking in unknown tongues' as a gift, but the distinction was well intended.

to expose your lies,
i will do that in 2 quick ways,
1,using hebrew dictionary,but im not relying wholy on that,but the same bible verse that you used has rxposed you.
2,using 1 Corinthians 13:2,3.
now,

1,using hebrew dictionary first;


1Cor 13:1 ThoughG1437 I speakG2980 with the tonguesG3588 G1100 of menG3588 G444 andG2532 of angels,G3588 G32 andG1161 haveG2192 notG3361 charity,G26 I am becomeG1096 [as] soundingG2278 brass,G5475 orG2228 a tinklingG214 cymbal.G2950



G1437

ἐάν

ean

eh-an'

From G1487 and G302 ; a conditional particle;
in case {that} { provided } etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty : - {before} {but} {except} (and) {if} (if) {so} ({what-} whither-) {soever} {though} when ({-soever}) whether ({or}) to {whom} [who-] so (-ever). See G3361 .

'G1437[size=14pt]'used for (though) also means (if)[/size]
'though' here denotes a 'conditional particle'often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty.
thats what i will show you in (2)below;

2,

1 Corinthians 13:2,3.

2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and [size=14pt]though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains[/size], and have not charity, I am nothing.
bolded word,did paul actually 'move a moutain really'?wait dont answer yet,try your logic on the next;

3And [size=14pt]though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[/size] and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

did he actually 'bestow all my goods to feed the poor' 'I give my body to be burned'literally?

but then,both assertions made by paul in both verses rests on 'sub ordinate' clause which he seek to emphasise
' [size=16pt]and have not charity[/size], it[size=16pt] profiteth me nothing[/size]'.
so,there is no shame in accepting your fault here,
fruit of spirit does not include 'speaking in tongues' please,my brother,its simple as that,people on this page saw that error,we are all learning,but must be humble to accept the truth,that is strenght in itself,and that is why i loved being a christian,truth are not hidden from the bible except those who seek to use what i can term as 'dead technicalities' according to philosophies but not according to christ.
cheers.
[/b]

[b]Continued;@wordtalk;

(cc. @ZIKKY can you pls aknowledge wordtalk ever relied on using these 3 bible translations GNT,YLT AND WYC.Bible translation to prove 'after the order'of which i copied below)thanks

@ wordtalk

MY EARLIER POST,I PROMISED TO SHOW YOU THAT 'SIMILITUDE' AS USED IN THE HEBREW'S CONTEXT IS SAME AS 'ORDER'
NOW,IM NOT GOING TOO FAR,IM GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU USING YOUR OWN BIBLE REFFERENCES OF WHICH I WILL REFER TO BY USING A LEGAL TERMS HERE THAT IS; 'PLEADINGS' AS IN STATING A PARTICULAR EXHIBIT OR RELYING ON A PARTICULAR EXHIBIT IN WHOLE AS AN EVIDENCE,HAVING AKNOWLEDGED MY QUOTE BELOW ,

My quote;

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

[b]Similitude
G3665
ὁμοιότης
homoiotēs
hom-oy-ot'ace

From G3664; resemblance: - like (as), similitude.

YOU WENT ON TO REPLY LIKE THIS;
Wordtalk

(a) 'similitude' is not the same thing as 'ORDER'

TO EXPOSE YOUR HYPOCRISY,USING YOUR OWN BIBLE REFFERENCES WHILE TREATING 'AFTER THE ORDER' WITH ZIKKY,YOU ACTUALLY QUOTED FROM 3 OTHER BIBLE TRANSLATIONS,WHOLY RELYING ON THEIR TRANSLATIONS;BELOW ARE YOUR CONVERSATION WITH ZIKKY WHERE YOU ACTUALLY RELY WHOLY ON THE BIBLE TRANSLATION THIS IS HOW YOU CONVIENIENTLY PRESENT THEM BELOW;

by wordtalk(m): 19 days & 6 hours
^^

Not bad. Here is another translation to 'assist' -


Hebrews 7:17 Good News Translation (GNT)

17 For the scripture says, You will be a priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek


or, by another translation to 'assist' -

Hebrews 7:17 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

17for He doth testify -- `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;'

. . . or, even this one:


Hebrews 7:17 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

17 For he witnesseth, That thou art a priest without end, by the order of Melchisedec; [Soothly he witnesseth, For thou art a priest into without end, after the order of Melchisedec;]


NOW USING YOUR ABOVE 'PLEADED' BIBLE TRANSLATIONS,TO SHOW YOUR HYPOCRISY;
a,Good News Translation (GNT)
b,Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
c,Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

LETS SEE HOW THE WORD 'ORDER' WAS RENDERED USING THE 3 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS THAT YOU RELIED ON IN HEB 7:15;
a,Hebrews 7:15
Good News Translation (GNT)

15 The matter becomes even plainer; a different priest has appeared, who is like Melchizedek.
b,Hebrews 7:15
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
15And it is yet more abundantly most evident, if according to the similitude of Melchisedek there doth arise another priest,
c,Hebrews 7:15
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
15 And more yet it is known, if by the order of Melchisedec another priest is risen up; [And more yet it is known, if after the order of Melchisedec another priest riseth;]



FOLLOWING THE 3 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS THAT YOU RELIED ON HEB 7:15,'AFTER THE SIMILITUDE' WAS ACTUALLY TRANSLATED;
a,GNT= WHO IS 'LIKE' b,YLT=THE 'SIMILITUDE' OF c,WYC='AFTER THE ORDER' WHICH MEANS;

'LIKE' IS SAME AS 'SIMILITUDE' IS ALSO SAME AS 'AFTER THE ORDER'.

PLS NOTE THAT THESE ARE YOUR OWN RELIABLE BIBLE REFERENCES,THERE IS NO DENIAL.

SO NOW WORDTALK, WHO IS LYING BETWEEN MYSELF AND YOU,OR WHO IS FORCEFULLY DENYING NOW?


wordtalk,quote
[quote]However, I think you are completely WRONG there, and have only fallen into the same error that you wanted to 'correct' in respondng to garyarnold. Actually, the original oath in Psalm 110:4 uses two different words for 'after' (על, 'al) and 'order' (דּברה, dibrâh) - they are NOT treated as the same or even as a single Hebrew word.

@wordtalk,



YOU WRONGLY ACCUSED ME OF ERROR IN PSALM 110:4 ABOVE AND BELOW,THAT I OMITTED (H5921)USED FOR AFTER, AND THAT WILL MAKE ME COPY AND PASTE DIRECTLY HOW IT WAS RENDERED TO SHOW YOU IF YOU ARE SURE OF WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF;
Wordtalk

your argument is also forcefully in DENIAL - because where we read of the fact that Scripture teaches about the 'ORDER' of melchizedek, you simply DENIED the fact by arguing it does not exist.

PLS WHERE ARE THE SCRIPTURES;

IF THOSE VERSES QUOTED BELOW ARE WHAT YOU REFFERED TO;
WORDTALK

Psalm 110:4 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchizedek'
Hebrews 5:6 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 5:10 - 'an high priest after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 6:20 - 'an high priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 7:11 - 'another priest should rise after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 7:17 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'
Hebrews 7:21 - 'a priest for ever after the ORDER of Melchisedec'

THEN I HAVE JUST PROVE YOU WRONG IN YOUR OWN RELIED REFFERENCES,SO JUST REPLACE 'ORDER' TO 'LIKE'NOW.

Now tell me: how could ANYONE open their eyes and see all these mention of the ORDER of Melchizedek and still DENY the fact by asserting that -
'THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT MELCHIZECK THAT WOULD WARRANT 'AN ALLEGED' 'PRISTHOOD 'ORDER', IT DOES NOT EXIST'
What then do you do with all those verses that establishes the fact beyond your DENIAL?
wordtalk quote;

IMMIDIATELY START DOING THAT REPLACEMENT BEFORE I DO IT FOR YOU,RIGHT NOW,AT LEAST YOU RELIED ON THE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS.

(b) your argument is erratic because you first attempted to argue that 'after' and 'order' are treated as one word, whereas they are two words in both Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7.

The (H1700) was used only for 'order' (דּברה, dibrâh), but not for 'after'. So what happened to (H5921) which was used for 'after' (על, 'al)?

No, you're wrong here BERNIMOORE. While you erred in assuming that H1700 applied to two Hebrew words, the fact is that you left out (H5921) for the other word in Psalm 110:4.

BELOW,I HAVE JUST COPIED AND PASTE DIRECTLY HOW(psalm 110:4) WAS RENDERED IN THE HEBREW DICTIONARY (without Additions and subtractions);

Ps 110:4 The LORD[i]H3068[/i] hath sworn,H7650 and will not repent[i]H5162[/i], Thou [art] a priest[i]H3548 [/i] for ever[i]H5769 [/i] after the orderH1700 of Melchizedek.H4442

NOW,WHERE IS (H5921)HERE ABOVE?
YOUR FURTHER REPLIES BELOW WERE JUST OUT OF CONTEXT,OR CONCOCTED AND FABRICATED BASED ON SPECULATION;

Wordtalk;

If you're looking for a similar construct (but with a different meaning) where two or more words in English appear only as a single word in the Hebrew, then look up 1 Chronicles 23:31 -

'And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD: '

The four English words above ('according to the order') are actually the translation of a single Hebrew word - משׁפּט (mishpâṭ). See also 2 Chronicles 8:14 for the same thing.

IF YOU CONCUCTION ABOVE IS WHAT YOU RELY ON TO ACCUSE ME OF ERROR,I THINK I DESERVED AN APPOLOGY FOR WRONGFULL ACCUSATION,

AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED,

a,(H5921)WAS NOT INCLUDED IN PSALM 110:4 ABOVE,AND YOUR FORCEFULL INCLUSION OF IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE FACT THAT 'YOU CANT BE ROME THAN THE POPE'.
b,THAT IM NOT THE ONE THAT LEFT (H5921)OUT BUT WAS NOT DEEMED SUITABLE FOR USE IN THE SENTENCE.

wordtalk;

The reason I pointed this out is not so much about the impact it has on your analysis of the word 'order' as used both in Hebrews 7 and Psalm 110. Rather, I think it matters to us that your attempt to 'correct' someone else and failing in the process only throws open the question of whether or not you have a good grasp of what you're arguing as far as the languages go.

NOW, I THINK IT IS YOU WHO DID NOT HAVE 'A GOOD GRASP'OF THE WORD 'ORDER'AS USED IN BOTH HEBREWS AND PSALMS,AS I WILL EXPOSE YOUR HYPOCRYSY LATER IN MY POST.

Wordtalk

Okay, now let's look at what seemed to have bothered you on the question of the clause 'AFTER THE ORDER'.
If 'manner' or 'style' was all that the author of Hebrews was trying to make, would it be the same in his use of that word 'order' for Aaron? After, he spoke about the 'order of Aaron' in Hebrews 7:11 - so was he effectively saying that other priests were simply called after 'the manner' of Aaron? Don't forget that in both cases of Aaron and Melchizedek, he used the same Greek word, 'τάξις (taxis)' - just so you know.

LETS SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF HERE,
Hebrews 7:11
11,If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

ABOVE HERE,YOU FORCEFULLY INSERT ‘IF OTHER PRIESTS’(as in continous tenses) BUT THE WORD IS ‘THAT ANOTHER PRIEST SHOULD’(an entity)(and it is fitting that christ priesthood alone is forever,so there is nothing that should even warant the use of word 'other priests'here.more so and not be called after the order of Aaron?

HAVING REMOVED THE CHAFF HERE,THE REAL WHEAT LOOKS LIKE THIS;BELOW USING YOUR SENTENCE

Wordtalk

so was he effectively saying that other priests were simply called after 'the manner' of Aaron?

WILL READ LIKE THIS;
so was he effectively saying that 'another priest' were simply called after 'the manner' of Aaron

PLS STOP CREATING CONTEXT WITH THE AIM TO MISDIRECT PEOPLE,ITS ABSURD TO DO THAT.I THINK I MUST COMMEND YOU ON CHANGING OF CONTEXT FOR YOUR OWN SATISFACTION,BUT SORRY, VIGILANT PEOPLE DONT FALL INTO THE TRAP.

wordtalk;

A most serious problem in assuming it was merely a matter of style would mean that Melchizedek had nothing special to offer the Jew as far as priesthood was concerned - because, firstly, other priests in the OT also had qualifications in their 'manner' of priesthood; and secondly, we would have to answer the question of WHY no other priest fitted the 'manner' more than Melchizedek.

ONLY PEOPLE WHO TENDS TO FALL INTO THE TRAP OF DEAD TECHNICALITIES,NOT ACCORDING TO GODS WORD BUT TO HAVE INTELECTUAL SATISFACTION WILL GIVE ATTENTION TO YOUR 'WHY'S QUESTIONS LEADING US NOWHERE;
1cor,1:21
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God,it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe

SINCE IT PLEASES GOD TO EXLUSIVELY OR WITHOUT CHALENGE USE THE 'LIKENESS' OF MELCHI'S PRIEST-KING FITTINGLY COMPARED TO JESUS SIMILAR PRIEST-'KING OF KINGS',IF IT LOOKS FOOLISH TO YOU IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU DEMAND AN EXPLANATION,WELL,IT PLEASED GOD WITHOUT AN APPOLOGY TO WORDTALK.
Wordtalk

There is a reason why he kept mentioning this 'order' of MELCHIZEDEK earlier in chapters 5 and 6 before he came to 7. If he was merely arguing his case on Hebrew constructs from Psalm 110, he would long have lost his audience! But he wanted to impress his recipients with something far more than 'similarities' - because he knew that they already had more than enough to show that mere 'similarities' in priesthood is not going to convince anyone about what he was arguing

Is that enough to ground his argument merely on the question of 'manner' of priesthood

I don't see how that underscores the gist of the writer of Hebrews in that chapter.

Regular line or not, the writer actually employed even far stronger basis for his arguments. Rather than deal with a 'regular lineage' of priests, he spoke about Someone who was not even connected with priestly service in the first place, talkless of being priest from another line!?.

He first had to deal with this question in verses 13 and 14 in two ways:

(a) v. 13 - the author asserts that this Person was from a tribe of which "no one has ever served at the altar" - even though the same Person was actually a Jew and could arguably have links to the priestly pedigree. Aside from the fact that among the ancestors of Jesus are several individuals named LEVI and MELCHI (see Luke 3), there are other valid reasons that a Jew could present to query the author's assertion here; so he goes on to verse 14 to show that his case had some other 'evidence' -

(b) v. 14 - although the author also argues that Moses said nothing about priesthood from the tribe of Judah, yet that in itself does not deny someone from the tribe of Judah being recognized as a Levitical priest.


.

YOUR WORDS IN BLUE IS 'SELF ASSUMING'BY QUESTIONING AN INSPIRED WRITTER WHO WROTE BY GODS INPIRATION,TO COME AND EXPLAIN WHAT TO YOU?INSULT,AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT NOBODY GAVE YOU THOSE AUTHORITY TO TELL US WHAT YOU 'FEEL' AS IF YOU ARE THERE WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN OR THE MOTIVES OF THE WRITER,PLEASE GO TO THE POINT STRAIGHT,TELLING US 'THIS IS WHAT THE WRITER IS OR THAT', IS JUST OFFENDING AS IT WASTES TIME AND TAKES MORE SPACES WITHOUT TREATING THE REAL ISSUE ITSELF.SO STOP IT IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUS.


Wordtalk

Perhaps the second point in (b) above surprises you? Well, let me expound on that.

NO,IM NOT SURPRISED.I HAVE EARLIER STATED THAT YOU HAVE UNFORTUNATELY CHOOSEN A RECKLESS APPROACH INSTEAD OF YOU PATIENTLY SEACH FOR THE REAL ANSWER.

Wordtalk;

As I've always tried to show, being from the tribe of Levi was no guarantee of being a Jewish priest, especially where one could have a mixed pedigree; but that is also no guarantee to deny that a Jew from Judah could most definitely be recognized as a Jewish priest.

YOUR ARGUMENT ABOVE,SHOWS YOUR LEVEL OF REASONING SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE CHECKED,SORRY FOR THIS,A VIRUS CAN CAN BE DEADLY,HOW DO I MEAN;
Proverbs 3:5-6

5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

SEEKING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IS TO ENHANCE OUR APPRECIATION AND RESPECT TO GODS WORD.BUT SEEKING 'HARMFULL KNOWLEDGE' DEPRECIATES OUR APPRECIATIONS AND VALUES RESPECTING GOD AND HIS WORDS.
I DONT SEE YOU MAKING ANY SENSE ABOVE AND BELOW HAD IT BEEN THAT YOU HAVE AKNOWLEDGED THE BOOK OF PROVERBS ABOVE,
LETS EXPANCIATE BELOW MORE OF YOUR QUOTES;

wordtalk;

If you want to argue against the fact on the basis of Hebrews 7:14, then let me ask you: what happens when a Levite is from the family of Judah - could he not also be a priest? If not, WHY then do we find a clear example of a case of a Levite priest who was from the family of JUDAH as in Judges 17:7?

The issue of 'regular line of priesthood' does not even arise here - because that is not what the writer sought as his ground of argument. He knew that if he were to make the argument of 'regular line', some of his recipients would have invalidated that kind of argument upon the fact that a Jew from the family of JUDAH was also recognized as a Levitical priest in Israel - Judges 17:7.

LETS TREAT THE WORDS IN BLUE;

a,

WHY then do we find a clear example of a case of a Levite priest who was from the family of JUDAH as in Judges 17:7?

IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU HAVE TO SAY THIS ABOVE, LET ME ASK YOU PERSONALLY,
DO YOU HAVE TWO FATHERS?

OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN ONLY BE CERTIFIED TO A PARTICULAR FATHER WITH SIMILAR D.N.A. AND NOT TWO.
WHICH MEANS WHAT IS SO SURE BELOW IS;

NOW LETS READ;
judges 17:7
7And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there.

8And the man departed out of the city from Bethlehemjudah to sojourn where he could find a place: and he came to mount Ephraim to the house of Micah, as he journeyed.

9And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehemjudah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.


a1 THE MAN 'DECLARED AS A LEVI'SHOWS THAT 'HE'IS ACTUALLY FROM THE TRIBE OF 'LEVI' AND THE WORD 'OF' BETHLEHEMJUDAH (a city) AND NOT 'FROM' BETHLEHEMJUDAH (a native), THAT EXPLAINS HIS NEED TO FIND A DWELLING PLACE.

a2,THERE WAS NO MENTION OF 'FROM' THE 'TRIBE OF JUDAH' HERE, NO,BUT A CITY CALLED BETHLEHEMJUDAH,(Vs 8,And the man departed out of the city from Bethlehemjudah to sojourn where he could find a place)

a3,OBVIOUSLY,THE LEVI 'IS FINDING A PLACE WHERE HE COULD STAY (vs8),AND THE REASON BEING THAT;
(vs6,In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes).

I EXPECTED YOU IN YOUR OWN DISCRESION TO DISCERN THAT NOT EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN A PARTICULAR CITY ARE 'NATIVES'OF THE CITY,EXPECIALLY IN THE 'CITY OF BETHLEHEMJUDAH'THE LEVI STILL SEEK WHERE TO DWELL,AND STILL GOES FURTHER EVEN AFTER STAYING WITH MICAH HE STILL MOVED ALONG TO SOJORN WITH THE TRIBE OF DAN.(chp 18:19,24)DOES THAT MEAN HE IS A LEVI FROM TRIBE OF DAN?


wordtalk

So, when he argues in Hebrews 7:14 that the line of Judah says nothing about priesthood/priests, that in itself does not wash with the fact that Jewish priests from the tribe of JUDAH were recognized in Israel's history, as in the example of Judges 17:7 and 18:19.

YOU SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT A PRIEST WAS ACTUALLY RECOGNISED FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH,WITHOUT DOING YOUR HOME WORK VERY WELL,SO YOUR ANSWER IS IN VS 6.
NOTHING OF SUCH HAPPENED,THERE WAS ONLY 'ONE'TRIBE OF LEVI ALLOTED WITH PRIESHOOD RESPONSIBILITIES,A LEVI WHO RESIDES TEMPORARILY IN THE CITY OF BETHLEHEMJUDAH DOES NOT WARRANT BEING CALLED A 'PRIEST'FROM TRIBE OF JUDAH,ITS ABSURD AND MISLEADING,
THIS FURTHER SHOWS THAT,IN WATERING DOWN INSPIRED WRITERS PROOF THAT SHOWS THE SIMILARITIES OR 'LIKE FOR LIKE' BETWEEN JESUS PRIESTHOOD AND MELCHI, ADVOCATES OF 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHIZEDECK' AGAIN SHOWS HOW RECKLESS THEY CAN GO IN WATERING DOWN AN ESTABLISHED PROOF THAT,JESUS ACTUALLY CAME FROM A TRIBE THAT 'NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT OFFICIATING AT THE TEMPLE' WHAT A DISGRACE TO THE ADVOCATES OF PRIESTHOOD ORDER THAT DOES NOT EXIST!

Wordtalk

An example is his assertion that Isaac was the 'only begotten' of Abraham (Heb. 11:17) when in very fact we know from the record in Genesis that Abraham had other sons besides Isaac! This 'mystery' is possibly reconciled when we seek the manner of the author's rhetorical style for such nuances.

YOU 'RUDELY' REFFERED TO 'AN' INSPIRED BIBLE WRITER'S INSPIRED WRITINGS AS 'ASSERTION' SHOWS GROSS DISRESPECT TO THE SCRIPTURES.

Hebrews 11:17
17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

SEE ANOTHER REFFERENCE THIS TIME FROM GOD HIMSELF;
Genesis 22

1,And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2,And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,


OR THIS

16,And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son


ISHMAEL IS THE FIRSTBORN, OF THE TWO ISAAC IS LAST. BUT ISHMAEL IS REJECTED AS THE MESSIAH'S LINEAGE AND ISAAC IS ACCEPTED.

ESAU IS THE FIRSTBORN, JACOB IS LAST. BUT ESAU IS REJECTED AND JACOB IS ACCEPTED.



SO THE QUESTION OF 'WHY' HERE DOES NOT ARISE OR MUST BE SOLVED BY THE 'INSPIRED WRITERS' BUT GOD ALMIGHTY.
wordtalk

Only lazy readers of Scripture would let Hebrews 7:14 overshadow all other considerations in the Old Testament

LAZINESS INDEED ,ACCORDING TO DEAD TECHNICALITIES,BUT SEE YOUR ANSWER BELOW (in blue);
1cor 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God,it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe[/b]

[b]@wordtalk,

reply to wordtalk on my last post;Im too busy this days but have to give this replies in batches.



YOUR RESPONSE TO MY LAST POST ARE NUMEROUS,AND WHEN I REALISED THAT YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY MIXED UP SOME THINGS UP BY DEFYING THE INSTRUCTION AS A GUIDE TO A SIMPLE ANALYTICAL AND LOGICAL 'SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS THAT I ACTUALLY ADDED (of which you aknowledged)LIKE THIS BELOW;

BERNIMOORE:

Note pls, my particular 'reply' here is divided to A ,B and, C anyone that would like to QUOTE ME on these particular reply ,should please either quote 'whole' PARAGRAPHS A, or B or C, you can only change the color of your particular emphasis on my qote. thanks

BUT YOU DEFIED THAT ORDER BY SHOWING A RECKLESS ATTITUDE BELOW;

wordtalk;

It's not possible to follow you in a straight line between your arguments - especially because you seem to have muddled up the issues and jumped to erroneous conclusions. So, bear with me as I've tried to unravel them in a coherent manner.

)

COMPREHENSIVELY,YOU HAVE JUST FAILED,

BUT THEN LET ME TREAT YOUR REPLY BY SIFTING 'GRAIN' FROM 'SHAFT'
WHICH IS ALWAYS THE BEST SOLUTION IN TREATING YOUR KIND OF APPROACH ,FIRSTLY;

My quote;

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

[b]Similitude
G3665
ὁμοιότης
homoiotēs
hom-oy-ot'ace

From G3664; resemblance: - like (as), similitude.

YOUR REPLY TO THIS ABOVE READS;

wordtalk

HOWEVER, there are two things to bear out here:

1. The whole of the writer's argument in chapter 7 does not rest on the issue of 'similitude' in verse 15 - so, we are not dealing with 'similitude' as a replacement for the word 'ORDER' in verse 17.

2. Since the thrust of the writer's argument for the priesthood of Melchizedek rests on an 'ORDER', we should seek to deal with this one rather than focus on 'similitude'.

IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU 'RUDELY' REFFERED TO 'AN' INSPIRED BIBLE WRITER AS 'WRITERS ARGUMENT' THAT ALONE SHOWS GROSS DISRESPECT TO THE SCRIPTURES AND THIS DISRESPECTFULL TREATMENT HAS JUST EXPOSED AN UNFAIR ATTITUDE OF BRINGING 'DEAD TECHICALTIES' IN HUMAN PHILOSOPHIES AT PAR WITH THE DISCERMENT OF HOLY SCRIPTURES,THATS WHY YOU USE WORDS LIKE 'JUMPING EXEGICAL HOLES' 'MUDDLED UP' 'GROUND OF ARGUMENT' 'GIST OF THE WRITER'.(dont mind my spellings,im just in a hurry)

UNFORTUNATELY,MANY THINGS THAT I THOUGHT THAT YOU KNEW,YOUR COMMENTS SHOWS OTHERWISE WITH INFUSIONS OF DEAD TECHNICALITIES OR MIND BUGGLING DEBATE LEADING US NOWHERE ECXEPT TO MAKE OTHER READERS TIRE OUT,BUT THEN IM GLAD TO SHOW YOU HOW 'GODS WORD' HAS SURVIVED WITHOUT 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES' YOU PROMOTE BUT RENDERED AS FOOLISHNESS,YOU NEED TO AKNOWLEDGE THESE;

1 Corinthians 1:19-24

19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.


2 Corinthians 10:4-5

4, For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

1 Corinthians 2:12-13
King James Version (KJV)
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.





I ALWAYS BUST INTO LAUGHTER WHEN YOU TRY TO ASSUME THE MIND OF A BIBLE WRITER,WHAT DO YOU THINK PAULS POINT HERE MEANS;
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know GoD,it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe

WHY ARE YOU TELLING US THINGS BELOW;

Since the thrust of the writer's argument for the priesthood of Melchizedek rests on an 'ORDER'

WHO GAVE YOU SUCH AUTHORITY?
OR THIS;

we should seek to deal with this one rather than focus on 'similitude'.

WHO ARE THE 'WE' OR WHO GAVE YOU HIS CONSENT ON WHERE TO FOCUS,

I THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU FELT JITTERY THAT 'SIMILITUDE' WAS ACTUALLY USED FOR ORDER,YOU NOW ON YOUR OWN ASSUME AN UNDESERVED ROLE TO DIRECT US WHICH ONE TO CHOOSE,EHN,UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY AKNOWLEDGE THAT GOD HIMSELF IS THE AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE,AND THE BIBLE 'IS WRITTEN THROUGH INSPIRATION OF GOD'

2 Tim.3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed.

EVERYTHING THE MEN WROTE IN THE BIBLE WAS INSPIRED, OR BREATHED, BY GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE MEN DID THE WRITING, BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT BREATHED INTO THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD WRITE.


1 Cor.2:13 . . . which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual truths in spiritual words.

2 Peter 1:21
King James Version (KJV)

21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost..

1. THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MEN AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.
2. GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT GAVE HIS PENMEN EVERY THOUGHT AND EVERY WORD THEY WROTE IN THE BIBLE. (VERBAL INSPIRATION)
NOTE: THE WRITERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WERE CALLED PROPHETS. THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WERE CALLED APOSTLES AND EVANGELISTS. THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE. IN ALL, GOD EMPLOYED ABOUT 40 MEN TO WRITE THE BIBLE, BEGINNING WITH MOSES AND ENDING WITH THE APOSTLE JOHN.

SO IF WORDTALK REFFERED TO THESE MEN AS MERE AUTHORS, THATS HIS BUSINESS,IM NOT GOING TO CONTEST AGAIN THAT SELF ELEVATED NOTION WHERE BECAUSE YOU WROTE SOME BOOKS,NOW MAKES YOU TO SEE YOURSELF AS SOMEONE WHO CAN BE AT PAR WITH BIBLES INSPIRED WRITERS IS A HUGE JOKE, REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO MIRRIAM,KORAH,DATAN AND ABIRAM AGAINST MOSES,
A WORD IS ENOUGH FOR THE WISE.

NOW, I WILL SHOW YOU THAT 'SIMILITUDE' IS SAME AS 'ORDER'IN MY NEXT POST.[/b]

looking for big pay now, football no be money?

[b]@Zikky

Well done Bernimoore, Good job! you've shown you have a good understanding of the Hebrews 7

THANKS TOO,

LET ALL GLORY BE UNTO THE ALMIGHTY GOD,
I JUST USED THEIR OWN REFFERENCED STRONG HEBREW BIBLE DICTIONARY(newjerusalem.org), AND THE ANSWER THERE WAS JUST UNDISPUTABLE,AT LEAST IT WAS NOT RECCOMENDED FIRST BY ME FIRST,

[color=#000099] WILL THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF ? IN HEBREW 7:15 AND HEB 7:17?


Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

[b]Similitude
G3665
ὁμοιότης
homoiotēs
hom-oy-ot'ace

From G3664; resemblance: - like (as), similitude.


GOING FURTHER TO G3664 WHERE IT WAS DERIVED, SEE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS RENDERED IN HEB 7:15 AS

‘’AFTER THE 'SIMILITUDE' OF MELCHISEDEC THERE ARISETH ANOTHER PRIEST’’,


G3664

ὅμοιος

homoios

hom'-oy-os

From the base of G3674 ;[i] similar (in appearance or character): - {like} + manner.



THE PARTICULAR ORIGINAL OATH REFFERED TO IN THE BOOK OF PSALM 110:4 from Hebrew 7,‘DID NOT’ TREAT ‘‘AFTER’’ SEPARATELY, AND ‘‘ORDER’’ SEPARATELY;Psa 110:4

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order (H1700) of Melchizedek.

Ps 110:4 The LORDH3068 hath sworn,H7650 and will not repentH5162, Thou [art] a priestH3548 for everH5769 after the orderH1700 of Melchizedek.H4442

H1700
דּברה
dibrâh
dib-raw'
Feminine of H1697 ; a {reason} suit or style: - {cause} {end} {estate} {order} regard.

THE WORD RENDERED “ORDER” HERE MEANS PROPERLY A 'WORD' ; 'A THING', 'A MATTER'; HENCE, 'A WAY' OR 'MANNER'. THE MEANING HERE IS,
THAT HE WOULD BE A PRIEST “AFTER THE MANNER” OF MELCHIZEDEK; OR,

SUCH A PRIEST AS HE WAS. HE WOULD NOT BE OF THE TRIBE OF LEVI; HE WOULD NOT BE IN THE REGULAR LINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD, BUT HE WOULD RESEMBLE, IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS OFFICE, THIS ANCIENT PRIEST-KING, COMBINING IN HIMSELF THE TWO FUNCTIONS OF PRIEST AND KING; AS A PRIEST, STANDING ALONE; NOT DERIVING HIS AUTHORITY FROM ANY LINE OF PREDECESSORS; AND HAVING NO SUCCESSORS.


.AND LIKE I SAID;

THE 'ONUS OF PROOF' OR 'THE PROOF BURDEN' NOW LIES ON THE 'ADVOCATES OF THE ALLEDGED 'MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD' TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM APART FROM HEBREW 7:16, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE BIBLE TO SHED MORE LIGHT AND CONVINCE US.

FAILURE TO DO THAT SHOWS HOW FUTILE AND EMPTY SPECULATION THEY BUILD THEIR BELIEFS.



[/i][/color]

CHEERS.[/b]

[b]
@ joeagbaje



The bible you relates to is very clear on the issue of talking in tougues
HOW ARE YOU?

YES, WHILE YOU ADMITTED THAT 'IF' YOU MUST SPEAK IN TONGUE TO THE BRETHREN OR THE CHURCH, AN INTERPRETER WAS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED BY APOSTLE PAUL,

BUT YOU SEEM TO SPLIT THIS APPLICATION OF THE USE OF AN INTERPRETER THAT IT ONLY APPLY TO THE FORMER ONLY, BUT THEN, YOU EXCLUDE 'PRAYING AUDIBLE TO THE CHURCH 'IN TONGUE' WITHOUT AN INTERPRETER OR WITHOUT THE CHURCH'S UNDERSTANDING.


I BELIEVED OR OPINED THAT THE REASON FOR THE RECOMENDATION OF AN INTERPRETER 'WAS TO EDIFY' THE CHURCH WHICH IS CLEALY STATED AS CONTAINED IN THE CHAPTER,WHEN  PAUL SUMMARISE THE 'PURPOSE' OF ANY KIND OF SPEAKING IN TONGUE, THAT IS;

1COR, 14:14-16;

14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

(IN BLUE) Vs 14 ABOVE SHOWS HOW 'FUTILE' HIS EFFORT WILL BE 'IF HE PRAYED IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE, AND WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING,

BUT Vs 15 below PARALLED PRAYING WITH SPIRIT 'ALONGSIDE' UNDERSTANDING, ALSO SING WITH SPIRIT 'ALONGSIDE' UNDERSTANDING.  

15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

AND Vs 16,

SUMMARISES THE PURPOSE OF ALL THESE GIFTS AS 'BLESSING', BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT GIFTED OR 'UNLEARNED' HOW WILL THEY SAY 'AMEN' (or let it be)   ''SEEING HE UNDERSTANDETH NOT WHAT THOU SAYEST?''


16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?


ALSO;

1COR, 14:19,26

19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath[i] an interpretation[/i]. Let all things be done unto edifying.


Let all things be done unto edifying

ALL THINGS THAT RELATES TO SPIRITUAL GIFTS  'INCLUDING PRAYER' ARE TO BE DONE HERE 'UNTO EDIFYING'

Definition of edify (verb)
to establish; to educate morally or spiritually; to improve; to strengthen

HONESTLY, WHAT DO DO THINK?

NOTE,
Pls while replying,try to quote my comment together with the quoted bible verses that i attached or reffered to my comment  together, i will not like my comment being separated from the bible verses i quoted together please.

Thanks, and God bless. waiting for your reply[/b]

@stildude

Continued from last post
ITS NOT BAD TO DO THAT I MEAN NOT BAD TO APOLOGISE AS CHRISTIAN.

I would rather be joining issues with Fr Evangel, Joeagbaje, Modele and other similar and good understanding minds here.

I THINK I RELATE WELL WITH JOEAGBAJE EVEN FROM OTHER TREAD AND STILL COMMEND HIM FOR THE FACT THAT NO MATTER WHAT, HE MUST ATTEMPT TO ANSWER A QUESTION EITHER CORRECTLY OR NOT, THATS COMMENDABLE OF HIM, WE RELATE WITH PEOPLE WHO DONT SHARE OUR VIEWS TO COMPARE AND TO EDUCATE AND AND TO LEARN.

I ONLY EXPECT YOU TO RELATE YOUR CONVINCTION ON WHAT YOU LEARN BASED SOLELY ON THE BIBLE ITSELF.

[b]@stildude

i ve been very busy for quite sometime now,its a very busy week, but saw your reply to my post, part of it copied below;

The fact that you have posted a few bible quote doesn't fool me. 2 cor 11: 14 best describes you in 2 cor 11: 10 -16 As the truth of Christ is in me , no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia .
11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers , transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness ; whose end shall be according to their works.
16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.

Obviously, you want occassions, I ain't giving it to you. Cheers!

ALSO

@Bernimoor. it is clearer by the time that you are either a baby in christ or an antichrist. Refer to the boldened in your post above. what do you mean by ''speak with your God''. bet you didn't know that that one will give you away. It sounds like what people of other faith would say. Tell us then, who is your own God. My God is the God of the universal, the almighty, the I AM I AM. JEHOVAH. The bible says in 2 cor 2:11, that we are not ignorant of the devil's devices. Maybe you are a member of one of those sects that go around with all sorts of bells and garments and only chant in place of speaking in tongues.

I APOLOGISE FOR HOW I REACTED TO YOUR EARLIER POST, USING THE WORD 'HEAR YOURSELF' ITS NOT BAD TO DO THAT. AND THATS WHY I LOVE BEING A CHRISTIAN, CHRISTIANITY PROVIDES AVENUE FOR DISCUSSION AND TO EDUCATE.

IM A BONAFIDE CHRISTIAN, WITH PASSION, WITH LEGAL KNOWLEDGE I HAVE READ SO MANY THEOLOGIANS BOOKS, PHILOSOPHERS,RELIGION (LEGAL PRACTICE) AND EVEN THE ONES YOU ACTUALLY RECCOMENDED BOTH KENNETH HAGINS AND COPELAND I HAVE A GLANCE AT THEIR BOOKS,AND CAN EASILLY SUMMARISE THEIR CONCEPTS, BUT THEN, FROM MY YOUTH, I HAVE READ THE WHOLE ENTIRE BIBLE FROM GENESIS TO REVELATION MORE THAN 8 (EIGHT) TIMES, AND WILL BE GLAD TO TELL YOU THAT THE BIBLE IS THE BEST OUT OF ALL, BECAUSE IT IS SELF EXPLANATORY, WIDELY TRANSLATED IN ALMOST ALL TONGUES INCLUDING YOUR MOTHER TONGUE,

IF KENNETH HAGINS BOOKS WERE TO BE USED TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO YOU,WHY WILL ITS DISTRIBUTION NOT IN ANYWAY NEAR THE WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BIBLE OR AVAILABLE ALMOST IN ALL LANGUAGE LIKE THE BIBLE?

IT SHOWS THAT, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND BACKED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO AID OUR UNDERSTANDING.

MY NEXT REPLY WILL EXPOSE SOME QUESTIONABLE THINGS THAT I PERSONALLY OBSERVE, AT LEAST TO SHOW ALL PEOPLE READING THE TREAD WHY I TOOK THE DECISION TO ALWAYS USE THE BIBLE DIRECTLY.




[/b]

[b]@garyarnold,

                                                           (And other interested persons)



i ve been very busy for quite sometime now,its a very busy week, but while composing some replies to wordtalk and others,i have a glance at the tread, and   i need a reply on your last  post below,

garyarnold quote;

(A)  

“AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEC”

“after” G2596 - A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time)
“order” G5010 - regular arrangement, that is, (in time) fixed succession (of rank or character)

We are talking about the order; i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Two comes after one.

IF Melchizedec was the first, after the order of would constitute the second.  Since the Levitical priesthood was disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), that means it is treated as though it never was.  Therefore, the priesthood of Christ comes after that of Melchizedec.  I believe it is as simple as that.

HOW DO YOU CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS 'A REGULAR ARRANGEMENT' AND 'FIXED SUCCESSION' WITHOUT CONSIDERING HOW 'ORDER' WAS RENDERED IN THE LATERS VERSES THAT ACTUALLY SHED MORE LIGHT ON THE TRUE MEANING, CONSIDER THIS FROM SAME CHAPTER 7 OF SAME HEBREW;


Heb 7:15[i] And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
[/i]
Similitude
G3665
ὁμοιότης
homoiotēs
hom-oy-ot'ace

From G3664; resemblance: - like (as), similitude.


GOING FURTHER TO G3664 WHERE IT WAS DERIVED, SEE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS RENDERED IN HEB 7:15 AS

 ‘’AFTER  THE  'SIMILITUDE' OF MELCHISEDEC  THERE  ARISETH  ANOTHER  PRIEST’’,


G3664

ὅμοιος

homoios

hom'-oy-os

From the base of G3674 ; similar (in appearance or character): - {like} + manner.



THE PARTICULAR  ORIGINAL  OATH REFFERED TO IN THE BOOK OF PSALM 110:4 from Hebrew 7,‘DID NOT’ TREAT    ‘‘AFTER’’ SEPARATELY, AND  ‘‘ORDER’’  SEPARATELY, LIKE YOU QUOTED,BELOW;

“after” G2596 - A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time)
“order” G5010 - regular arrangement, that is, (in time) fixed succession (of rank or character)

BUT RATHER, THE TRANSLATION   ‘ACTUALLY JOINED’   ‘’AFTER THE ORDER’’  TOGETHER AND NOT SEPARATELY LIKE YOURS,THAT IS; (‘after’=(a meaning) and ‘order’=(another meaning)  BUT   ‘’AFTER THE ORDER’’ TRANSLATED ALTOGETHER WAS ACTUALLY RENDERED  USING (H1700),   SEE THE DIFFERENT MEANING DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ABOVE THAT IT USES;(in the same strong Hebrew dictionary you used);

Psa 110:4

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order (H1700) of Melchizedek.

H1700
דּברה
dibrâh
dib-raw'
Feminine of H1697 ; a {reason} suit or style: - {cause} {end} {estate} {order} regard.

THE WORD RENDERED “ORDER” HERE MEANS PROPERLY A 'WORD' ; 'A THING', 'A MATTER'; HENCE, 'A WAY' OR 'MANNER'. THE MEANING HERE IS,
THAT HE WOULD BE A PRIEST “AFTER THE MANNER” OF MELCHIZEDEK; OR,

SUCH A PRIEST AS HE WAS. HE WOULD NOT BE OF THE TRIBE OF LEVI; HE WOULD NOT BE IN THE REGULAR LINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD, BUT HE WOULD RESEMBLE, IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS OFFICE, THIS ANCIENT PRIEST-KING, COMBINING IN HIMSELF THE TWO FUNCTIONS OF PRIEST AND KING; AS A PRIEST, STANDING ALONE; NOT DERIVING HIS AUTHORITY FROM ANY LINE OF PREDECESSORS; AND HAVING NO SUCCESSORS.


(B)  IM ASKING NOW, WILL THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF ? IN HEBREW 7:15 AND HEB 7:17?

NOW, THE PARTICULAR HEB 7, SUPPLIED US WITH  ESTABLISHED PROOFS POINTING TO THE TRUE MEANING OF WHAT IS RENDERED 'ORDER';THAT IS;RESEMBLANCE, OR 'MANNER' OR  'LIKE' FOR 'LIKE',

PLEASE CONSIDER BELOW,WHAT THIS VERSES INCLUDED ARE ALL ABOUT;quoted(in blue)below

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

THAT IS 'HAD IT BEEN THAT' LEVITICUS PRIESTHOOD COULD ACHIEVE PERFECTION? THERE WOULD BE 'NO FURTHER NEED' FOR 'ANOTHER PRIEST, WHICH MEANS THE ALLEGED 'MELCHIZEDECH ISSUE WOULD HAVE NO BASIS AND RENDERED 'USELESS'

LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD,SAME  AS AARONIC OR ALSO KNOWN AS AARONIC PRIESTHOOD, HAS A BASIS THAT ACTUALLY DID NOT PUT US IN THE DARK THAT IS;

(The Aaronic Priesthood is also called the Levitical Priesthood. The word Levitical comes from the name Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel. Moses and Aaron, who were brothers, were Levites.

When the Aaronic Priesthood was given to Israel, Aaron and his sons received the presiding and administrative responsibility. The male members of all other Levite families were put in charge of the ceremonies of the tabernacle, including the Mosaic law of sacrifice).

(C)   ALSO WE ARE 'NOT IN THE DARK' CONCERNING THE MANNER OF WHICH CHRIST 'WAS APPOINTED' A PRIEST 'SIMILAR' OR 'LIKE' OR 'IN RESEMBLANCE' OF MELCHIZEDECK THE ACIENT PRIEST, AS A ;PRIEST-KING, COMBINING IN HIMSELF THE TWO FUNCTIONS OF PRIEST AND KING,
AND JESUS 'DECLARED AS KING  OF KINGS,AND LORD OF LORDS' WHAT A FITTING AND UNDISPUTABLE SIMILARITIES?

FURTHER, THE PRE-LAW HIGH PRIESTS, WE ARE NOT BEING PUT IN THE DARK,THAT IS  PRIESTS ''WHOSE HEART''  ARE TOWARDS THE ALMIGHTY GOD OR ACCEPT THE ALMIGHTY GOD OVER THEIR OWN NATIVE gods, AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE CALL FROM GOD 'IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR TRIBE OR  NATIVE ORDINATION' EXAMPLE OF THIS IS JETHRO,

(Exodus 18:8-12).
"And Moses told his father in law all that the LORD had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel's sake, [and] all the travail that had come upon them by the way, and [how] the LORD delivered them. And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the LORD had done to Israel, whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians. And Jethro said, Blessed [be] the LORD, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that the LORD [is] greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly [he was] above them. And Jethro, Moses' father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father in law before God." (Exodus 18:8-12).

JETHRO WAS THE KING OF MIDIAN,

AND THEY WORSHIP IDOLS

numb 25:16

16 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 17 “Harass the Midianites, and attack them; 18 for they harassed you with their schemes by which they seduced you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the plague because of Peor.”

BUT AFTER PROFESSING HIS ALLEGIANCE OR TOTAL ACCEPTANCE TO THE ALMIGHTY GOD,  HE PERFORM THE SAME SACRIFICING FUNCTION OF A HIGH PRIEST 'IN THE PRESENCE OF AARON' WHO WAS A PRIEST BY BIRTH AS THE FIRST BORN JUST THE SAME WAY MELCHIZEDECH DID TO ABRAHAM WHO WAS ALSO A PRIEST.

JETHRO SHARE THE SAME 'CALL' TO GOD WITH MELCHIZEDECH,THAT IS THEY ARE BOTH   ELIGIBLE TO OFFICIATE OR EVEN ENJOY TO BE CALLED 'GODS PRIEST' SO THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT MELCHIZECK  THAT WOULD WARRANT 'AN ALLEGED'  'PRISTHOOD 'ORDER', IT DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS NO ''PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO 'PROVE OR STAND' AS A RECOGNISED AND ACCEPTED PROOF, EXCEPT  MERE SPECULATIONS,

SO WE ARE TOTALLY IN THE DARK NOT FROM THE BIBLE BUT FROM THE AGITATORS OR ADVOCATES OF UNEXISTING 'PRIESTHOOD 'ORDER' ALLEGED TO BE OF  MELCHIZEDECK AND THATS THE ONLY PART THAT REMAINED AN ARTIFICIAL MISTERY OF WHICH THEY USE  ONLY ON ONE PARTICULAR VERSE, IS HEBREW 7: 16;

WE ALSO HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST 'ASCENTION TO PRIEST' OUTSIDE LEVITICUS ORDER;HEB 7:13,14;

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.


ALSO

SEE THE DEFINATION OF ''AFTER  THE POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE'' (a verse tha advocates of melchi priesthood turned to 'a dynasty'  yes 'dtnasty'in the sense that they actually 'smuggled' their own unproved meaning through the back door using this verse 16 as a cover, now lets uncover or shift the veil using your 'strong hebrew bible dictionary;

afterG2596   the powerG1411    of anG2222    endlessG179    life.G2222





“after” G2596 - A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time)



''The power'' ''force'' G1411

G1411
δύναμις
dunamis
doo'-nam-is
From G1410 ; force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself): - {ability} {abundance} {meaning} might ({-ily} {-y} -y {deed}) (worker of) miracle ({-s}) {power} {strength} {violence} mighty (wonderful) work.

''of an''   SAME DEFINATION RENDERED AS G2222 BELOW ALSO USED FOR 'LIFE'


''endless''.


G179
ἀκατάλυτος
akatalutos
ak-at-al'-oo-tos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G2647; {indissoluble} that {is} (figuratively) permanent: - endless.


G2222
ζωή
zōē
dzo-ay'
From G2198 ; life (literally or figuratively): - life (-time). Compare G5590 .

Matt 18:9
AndG2532 ifG1487 thineG4675 eyeG3788 offendG4624 thee,G4571 pluckG1807 itG846out,G1807 andG2532 castG906 [it] fromG575 thee:G4675 it isG2076 betterG2570 for theeG4671 to enterG1525 intoG1519 lifeG2222 with one eye,G3442 rather thanG2228 havingG2192 twoG1417 eyesG3788 to be castG906 intoG1519 hellG1067fire.G4442


“after” G2596 - A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time) ''The power'' force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself
''endless'' {indissoluble} that {is} (figuratively) permanent ; life (literally or figuratively): - life (-time)

ALL THE TEXT ABOVE, HEBREW CHAPTER 7:16 ABOVE MOSTLY MEANINGS TO THEM ARE ACTUALLY FIGURATIVE(not in their normal literal meaning but in a way that makes a description) AS YOU CAN SEE,

NOW THE 'ONUS OF PROOF' LIES ON THE 'ADVOCATES OF THE ALLEDGED MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD' TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM APART FROM HEBREW 7:16, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO SHED MORE LIGHT AND CONVINCE US.


Note pls,    my particular 'reply' here is divided to A  ,B   and,    C            anyone that would like to QUOTE ME on these particular reply ,should please either quote 'whole' PARAGRAPHS A,  or B or   C, you can only change the color of your particular emphasis on my qote. thanks


[/b]

[color=#000099]correction on my earlier post,[/color] WE HAVE TWO BANKOLE'S INTEAD OF ONE ON THE SENTENCE.;
BERNIMOORE;

CAN BANKOLE SWEAR HE DIDN'NT COLLECT BRIBE FROM BANKOLE?.

pls replace the first BANKOLE WITH ; KEYAMO.

[b]IF IBORI WERE TO BE TRIED IN NIGERIA, WHAT YOU WILL HEAR IS THAT 'IT WAS BECAUSE  HE BELONGS TO ANOTHER PARTY' OR 'IT IS THE WORK OF HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES(im not excluding any political party, religion or tribal 'virus' commonly used to harm our inteligence), AND BECAUSE OF THAT, CRIMINALS WILL GO AWAY SCOT FREE, AND WILL EVEN BE ADVISING THE YOUTHS OR SEE AS SOMEONE TO BE EMULATED, WE CELEBRATE FAILURES, OUR LAW IN NIGERIA BECAME SO POROUS THAT IT IS EASY TO MANIPULATE AND CLAIM INNOCENT IN FRONT OF GLARING EVIDENCES, BUT THERE IN THE U.K, THE LAW WAS SO TIGHT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE ONLY LENIENT AND LEAST OPTION WAS TO ADMIT 'STEALING', THE NIGERIAN LAWYERS ONLY WEAR THEIR WIGS TO INTIMIDATE THE WAY THE POLICE AND SOLDIERS POSE WITH THEIR GUNS TO INNOCENT NIGERIANS, WHILE THEY(lawyers, judges, police and army plus the 'cursed constitution imposed on us') REMAIN A TOOTHLESS BULL DOG,

MY SON WAS LISTENING TO OUR LAWYER FESTUS KEYAMO WHILE ADDRESSING HIS LOST CASE AGAINST BANKOLE, KEYAMO WAS SPEAKING ALL THE BIG 'LEGAL GRAMMAR OR REGISTERS' AND ASK ME ;Daddy why is this man speaking big big grammar, i simply told my son not to take festus keyamo serious, because his legal impotence has just cost him to lose a case and out of frustration he now begin to protest it by speaking unuseful and waste grammar 'as if the more you speak them the more you win your case, THAT IS THE KIND OF PEOPLE WE ARE IN NIGERIA, WE WANT TO BRAG OVER OUR ACHIEVEMENTS AND CELEBRATE FAILURES, WHAT A SHAME.

KEYAMO FILED MORE THAN 40 FOURTY COUNT CHARGE, WHILE ONLY 2 TO THREE COUNT CHARGE THAT ARE WELL  PREPARED CAN CONVICT BANKOLE. MAKING A CARRICATURE OF THE WHOLE PROCESS,AND 'RECEIVE HIS GLORY INSTANTLY BUT FAILED AT THE LONG RUN.

HE FILED A CIVIL CASE AS A CRIMINAL CASE SO AS TO FACILITATE IMMIDIATE ARREST OF BANKOLE, KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE KEY TO REMOVE BANKOLE FRON DETENTION REST WITH HIM (KEYAMO) THEREBY OPENING HIMSELF AVAILABLE TO BIG BRIBE, CAN BANKOLE SWEAR HE DIDN'NT COLLECT BRIBE FROM BANKOLE?.

WELL THATS KEYAMO OWN OIL WINDFALL OPPORTUNITY.

AS LONG AS WE HAVE ALL THESE KIND OF PEOPLES AS LEADERS?

PEOPLE LIKE, TINUBU, OTEDOLA, ATIKU, OBASANJO,FEMI-FANI-KAYODE(who shamelessly came out in support of the masses to seek relevant during the 'occupy Nigeria' protest, if we are crying, we can still see thiefs with our eyes wide open ) WIIL WALK FREE.

EXCUSE ME.[/b]

[b]@joeagbaje

where was 'tongue' mentioned here?below, but you actually 'insert'   your own meaning,

Praying tongues is praying in the spirit dude. You can see paul contrasting praying in tongues (spirit) with praying in understanding here.

1 Corinthians 14:15
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Hope it's clear to you now?

see other translation,

1 Corinthians 14:15
New International Version (NIV)

15So what does this mean? It means that I will pray with my spirit, and I will pray with my mind. I will sing psalms with my spirit, and I will sing psalms with my mind.


1 Corinthians 14:15
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.


pls lets us be sincere here,and dont mix things up.

thanks for the cortesy anyway.[/b]

[b]@joeagbaje

where was 'tongue' mentioned here?below, but you actually 'insert' your own meaning,

Praying tongues is praying in the spirit dude. You can see paul contrasting praying in tongues (spirit) with praying in understanding here.

1 Corinthians 14:15
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Hope it's clear to you now?

see other translation,

1 Corinthians 14:15
New International Version (NIV)

15So what does this mean? It means that I will pray with my spirit, and I will pray with my mind. I will sing psalms with my spirit, and I will sing psalms with my mind.


1 Corinthians 14:15
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.


pls lets us be sincere here,and dont mix things up.

thanks for the cortesy anyway.[/b]

The whole church can pray to God in tongues or edify themselves in tongues . But you should not give prophecy in tongues without interpretation. Prophecy edify the body but Speaking in tongues Edifies us individually.

1 Corinthians 14:4
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

@ joeagbaje

NONE OF YOUR QUOTED BIBLE BELOW SHOWS 'PRAYER IN TONGUE' CAN YOU SEARCH MORE, OR HAVE A 50/50 FROM THE AUDIENCE?IM ACTUALLY GIVING YOU A LIFE LINE, YOU ARE FREE,

Jude 1:20
But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Paul instructs us to always pray in the spirit

Ephesians 6:18
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;


So when the church prays in the spirit or in tongues , it's very orderly.

[b]@joeagbaje

lest i forget,

you know, the greatest blunder you did today was to confuse jesus crying about lazarus death to 'speaking in tongue' im still laughing on that matter, expecially when you deliberately stop the verse at mark verse16: 17,
but vs 18 actually gave you another meaning to complete the sentence, only for you to cut it off.

jesus never spoke in tongues, its a fact, but you said it doesnt matter, but you also said all christians should speak in tongue,im i right, can you be rome than the pope?

obviously not all posses all these gift only few among them, neither was it mean a pre requisite to be a christian, hear paul,

1 cor 12:29

29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best[a] gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

did the euthopian eunuch ever speak in tongue?

he only got baptised, he never read phylosophycal books or demand for them.

why do you even gave yourself a low esteem by thinking kenneth Hakins can do more than you do,or even influence your thinking, this is a man confined to be controversial, when he declare his death experience and the hell brouhaha, whos interested in those myth for Gods sake  compare to bible,its so irritating men, i have written so many books and i dont feel low esteem to anybody,pls do youself a favor.[/b]

@ joeagbaje,

pls answer your question fast,

But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

If churches are not filled with hypocrites today, so why can't they just follow the simple instruction above?

[b]@ stildude,
JUST HEAR YOURSELF;

I have recommended a book (Tongues; beyond the upper room by kenneth Hagin), try and read it.

WHY DONT YOU JUST CONFESSED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED by( kenneth Hagin) OUTSIDE THE BIBLE,WHY DONT YOU JUST HEED THE WARNING BELOW;

COL 2:8;
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

NO WONDER THAT YOU CAN NOT EVEN QUOTE A BIBLE VERSE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM IN ALL YOUR POSTS,

WELL

IT IS A SHAME THAT YOU UNDERMINE GODS WORD,THE BIBLE BUT HAVE TO RECCOMEND A BOOK WRITTEN JUST RECENTLY (19TH CENT TO 20TH), BY A NOBODY TO UNDERSTAND A BOOK A WHOLE (BIBLE) WRITTEN AND COMPLETED SOME 2,000 YRS AGO, AND HAPPENS TO BE THE MOST CIRCULATED BOOK WORLDWIDE.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION;

TIMOTHY AS A CHILD UNDERSTOOD THE SCRIPTURE DIRECTLY WITHOUT KENNETH HAGIN, AND IT WAS BEBNEFICIAL TO HIM;

2 Timothy 3:15,16

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, [color=#000099]and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,.
[/color]

DO YOU KNOW THAT BIBLE IS THE MOST WIDELY CIRCULATED BOOK IN THE WHOLE WORLD,

PLS DROP UNSCRIPTURAL BOOKS THAT ARE INFLUENCED BY PHILOSOPHY IDEAS WHICH IS IN LOGGERHEAD WITH CHRIST. DO YOURSELF A FAVOUR, BIBLE CAN BE UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY WITHOUT KENNETH HAGIN, ENH?
[/b]

[b]@ joeagbaje,

There's nothing like silent prayer. Paul said concerning prophecy in tongues without interpretation, such man shoukd keep quiet. It has to do with prophecy.

WHERE IS PROPHECY HERE IN THIS 2 BIBLE VERSE BELOW?, NOW WHY ARE YOU ALSO REPLACING BIBLE'S 'SILENCE' WITH QUIET?

WHEN FACED WITH FACTS, PLS DONT ARGUE, PEOPLE ARE WATCHING PLS, ITS CLEAR HERE


It's irrelevant .he groaned in the spirit. It's also a form of praying in the spirit.



DOES GROANING IN SPIRIT MEAN SPEAKING IN TONGUE?

IM DYING HERE WITH LAUGHTER,

LET ME HELP YOU WITH OTHER TRANSLATION;
John 11:33-34

New International Version (NIV)
33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

SO FROM CRYING FOR LAZARUS, JESUS WAS ALSO PRAYING, JOEAGBAJE WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO YOURSELF, IT IS NEVER SPEAKING IN TONGUE SIR, HA HA HA HA HA.


1cor 14:27,28

27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.[/b]