₦airaland Forum

PastorKun:
The catch phrase was "irrespective of their profession". [size=14pt]your failure to show us from scriptures that israelites that were not farmers were also ex0pected to tithes[/size] proves you are adding to the word and you need to repent.

Then why can't you show us where only one profession was mentioned to tithe?...so that you can prove my point wrong.

This is your initial statement.

DProDG:
The OP can't even tell the difference between [size=14pt]abiogenesis and evolution,[/size] #Fail

Whereas what the OP is talking about is EVOLUTIONIST not evolution itself.

SMH seriously for you...and the funny part of it you will be claiming you're more intelligent that the Religious people when you couldn't differentiate between EVOLUTIONIST and Evolution.

johnydon22:
A supposedly omnipotent being thought it would be good but alas was wrong...isn't that funny?

It should be Omniscient not Omnipotent

chigoizie7:
One sure thing is that I ve not gotten a cogent answer to dis question, sori to say that majority of us are not sticking to my question, I really don't know how to say this again.

I didn't border to address the OP because of this post.

Thus I will rephrase it. " Did God create woman as a second thought?

No both man and woman were already in the plan of God it's not a second THOUGHT that will diminish Omniscient of God.

When he created man, didn't he have it in mind that man would also procreate?

He actually did only that you didn't pay attention to how you read creation account of man in Genesis.

First thing you must know is that the word 'MAN' is interchangeably used for; 1) the primary person in the group which is Adam, 2) Adam and his wife (the name EVE does not appear not until after the FALL), and 3) Mankind in general.

So let's read the creation account of man in Genesis and see whether God has the woman in mind.

"And God said, Let us make MAN (singular) in our image, after our likeness: and let THEM (Plural) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 And God created MAN (Singular) in his own image, in the image of God created he HIM (singular); [size=14pt]male and female[/size] created he THEM (plural). 28 And God blessed THEM (plural): and God said unto THEM (plural), Be fruitful, and multiply,..." Gen 1:26-28 ASV (capital and bracket mine)

With this in mind then we can move further.

Creating all other creatures in pairs and then man alone without the thought of woman, aint he being unfair to man from the onset? Does it mean that when he created man that his intentions were that man will live for eternity for him to give that same man charge over every other thing he created which will definitely procreate?

NO! As we can see from above passage.

As I ponder on my initial reason for creating this very thread, things tends to be more and more complex in-terms of complications." My question still remains simple." Did God ever made a mistake of not creating woman the moment he created man?"(Apart from the after thoughts).

God never gave it a SECOND thought neither was it a mistake.

I think where the confusion sets in when you read Genesis Chapter 2 in isolation of the rest of creation account of MAN and more importantly when you read in Chapter two that Adam did the whole work of NAMING all the animals before his wife was created WHEREAS the point God wants to draw out from Genesis chapter 2 is IMPORTANCE of MARRIAGE.



Remember, I am a fallible man trying to understand the mind of an infallible God.

DProDG:
You did

Show me from the OP

Kay17:
unfortunately it is none. it is mere hope

Atheist also have hope.

EvilBrain1:
Also, he's using the argument from ignorance: We don't fully understand how life first arose on this planet, therefore goddidit.... with maaagic!

If you don't FULLY understand how life first arose on this planet, how come you agree with the theory of evolution that ONLY SINGLE CELL started it all?

DProDG:
The OP can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, #Fail

Who told you?

PastorKun:
Kindly quote the scripture that says "All Israelite are to TITHE" irrespective of there occupation. Your failure to do this would confirm that you are committing the grievous sin of adding to God's word.

The way you people reason at times baffles me a lot.

To you I have added to God's word, what if you who claimed that Tithe has been disannulled according to Hebrews 7?

Number 18:27 "Thus ye also shall offer a heave-offering unto Jehovah of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and thereof ye shall give Jehovah's heave-offering to Aaron the priest" ASV

It's now left for you to show us where collection of TITHE is only from selected group of people and let us see who is adding to God's word.

PastorKun:
And you read in your own bible that those that are not farmers should tithe of their own income too Does that not make you guilty of adding to scriptures which is a very serious sin?

All Israelite are to TITHE not separation of farmer from any group and beside Agriculture is the major occupation in those day.

CANTICLES:
Invalid excuse ..... Do u still adhere to Sabbath because its also HOLY to Jehovah ? If NO, why retain tithe for same reason.

That's why I first asked you whether you know the meaning of SABBATH but you couldn't say anything than to strike it.

I believe your wrong understand of SABBTH leads you to this.

NOTE: Melchizedek receive tithe (properties from war)from Abraham ONCE .... NOT year after year, week after week , as many in christendom do.

So have you given your OWN TITHE for once?

I know you will come with another thing.

But most importantly:

Can you show us where Christians and the gentile converts tithe to the New Priest in the order of melchizedek?

I have answered this somewhere in my previous post but not directly as you asked here.

Maamin:
If the holy spirit is called the spirit of God how comes you end up referring to that spirit as a separate entity in the godhead(i.e the father is not the holy spirit, the holy spirit is not the father likewise the son) because the trinity doctrine claims co-equality in the godhead, yet we read that the holy spirit is of/from God the father. So your analogy contradict itself where you said "Jehovah is that spirit".

Everything in the universe is of/from God.

So when Bible called Holy spirit THE SPIRIT OF God means Holy spirit is different from other evil spirit, that's why the 'HOLY' always used as an adjective as being explained in the OP

It's so ridiculous to think because the Bible says The Spirit OF God means is not distinct from The Father.

So stick to the OP once again.

Maamin:
Op, so how do you reconcile this verses from Gen 1:1-3 ? Focusing on verse 2

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God

---

moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Hope you can noticed the definite article in the underline words...

I have said it so many times that the holy spirit or the spirit like you said in your op is of God.. not necessary another person this spirit proceeds from God who in his original nature is a Spirit.

Genesis 1:1-3 is not a hard verse to understand and this is not the only place where Holy spirit was called THE SPIRIT OF GOD in the Bible.

Nothing wrong with the definite article 'THE' here as we know that it's pointing to something.

The bolded part is our focus, but let me start with you by asking you this what do you understand PERSON to mean?

But let stick to the OP.

brocab:
The law on Tithing was never about money, it was never a commandment, but a law-and tithing was used with sacrificing and offerings, yearly in the Old Testament.
You have asked where the Lord dis annulled the tithing law-I suppose when he dis annulled the sacrificing law, and the burnt offerings law, which you don't seem to be too keen on doing?

BUT YOU ARE KEEN TO FOLLOW ONE OF THE LAWS AND NOT THE OTHERS.
James 2:10, For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

[size=14pt]And you have stumbled you don't follow after sacrificing, you don't follow after the burnt offerings-but you do follow only after the tithing law.[/size]

Matthew 23-23, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of Mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law; justice and mercy and faith.
[size=14pt]These you ought to have done,[/size] with out leaving the others undone.

So then we have a Question for you-why leave out the sacrificing, and the burnt offerings-when we all know in the Old Testament those three were one in all, in Law.

@bold 1 & 2-Please try to read my last 2 post, I can't keep repeating myself again.

@bold 3-Jesus emphatically says they need to Tithe but they shouldn't forget doing the rest, do you understand it now?

CANTICLES:
Is SABBATH Not also Holy To Jehovah ? Exodus 16:23 , do u still adhere to that one too ?

Don't tell me you don't know the meaning of SABBATH...

U quote the whole thing as if the isrealites will carry their food items and products to Jehovah in heaven . This is how its done

You think everyone reason as you can reason.

" Now see that I have given to the sons of Levi every tenth part in isreal as an inheritance ... FOR I HAVE GIVEN TO THE LEVITES as an inheritance the tenth part contributed by the people of isreal" Num 18: 21 ,24

Shey na Levites , Sons Of Aaron u dey give ur holy tithe to?

No! I tithe to the NEW priest in order of Melchizedek.

PastorKun:
I think the onus is on you to show us were christians were instructed to tithe in the bible and explain also why you and your ilk preach tithes of money contrary to God's tithing instruction to the israelites.

You're the one who think we preach ONLY monetary tithe but when I was with my Grandma in the village back then as a farmer she Tithe with her farm products which is what she does for a living and do other farmers too. Me I'm not a farmer but now that I work as a civil servant the way to tithe is through the reward for my sweat (salary).

Well I really appreciate you people opinion on this.

Regards.

Koolking:
Facts have been laid bare from the Bible for you to see, but you have refused to acknowledge. However, there is no crime in being opinionated and believing in what gives one personal fulfillment. The cool fact is, tithe or no tithe, your salvation will never be taken away provided you live a righteous life.

I respect your believe Sir.

Where are the facts sir?

You people claimed that Tithe has been disannulled in the Bible and I asked for the verse but only verse you people can provide is not talking about disannulling of Tithe.

Finally, the reason why Tithe was not part of what Jesus came to earth to set aside is because Tithe itself is HOLY to God according to God's statement at inauguration of Levitical priesthood.

"And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is Jehovah's: it is holy unto Jehovah" Lev 27:30 ASV

This shows another misunderstanding of that Hebrews 7 by you people.

JMAN05:
It is not a funny part. It was just the truth, so that you dont copy my own reasons to mean the reason of NWT Committee.

This is very pathetic, you're just following what they just say without evidence of what they said.

"will we" is the right setting. You can't even work out that little thing. sorry.

It is no perversion.

I don't get you here sir.

The rockmass being spoken of in that I corinthians is a literal nonliving object. How can that lifeless object be Christ? Is christ a lifeless object?

Paul was only drawing a symbolic type from that rock. Lol, how can Christ be a literal rockmass?

Your twisting of the scripture is not even funny anymore but see what Paul wrote whether it means the meaning you gave it "and all drank the same spiritual drink.+ [size=14pt]For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them,[/size] and that rock meant* the Christ" 1 Corin 10:4 NWT

It's called SPIRITUAL ROCK and this SPIRITUAL ROCK used to FOLLOW them.

Jehovah sent Michael, [size=14pt]but he was not then the Christ.[/size] He was a spirit.

You've put rope in your own neck.

"Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. Let us consider Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion."

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/#?insight[search_id]=38448fa5-a8d5-4a05-a712-9c9faa351f3a&insight[search_result_index]=0

1 Pet 1:12 showed that this secret was not revealed to them.

He esteemed the reproach of his anointing than what Pharoah had to offer. That is the meaning of the verse.

Christ means anointed one.

But they spoke through spirit of Christ.

Lol...According to JWs Michael appeared in OT and it's another name for Jesus Christ.

They are good bible students, if my reasons here are biblical, then they must agree with them.

If they say Jesus is a god without giving reasons, I can produce a reason cos am a bible student.

Thank God you agree that they were just GOOD BIBLE STUDENTS not Greek or Hebrew Scholars.
So why do you chose the word of GOOD BIBLE STUDENTS over that of Greek or Hebrew Scholars?

Christ came in the first century, Christ is not the angelic creature that was operating from heaven. the Christ is a human.

This shows that you don't even know what Bible but yet you called yourself Bible student and more precisely you don't follow what your organization teaches.

"2. Why did Jesus come to the earth?

God sent his Son to earth [size=14pt]by transferring his life from heaven to the womb of a virgin Jewess named Mary.[/size] So Jesus did not have a human father. (Luke 1:30-35) Jesus came to the earth (1) to teach the truth about God, (2) to set us an example in how to do God’s will even when we are in difficulties, and (3) to give his perfect life as “a ransom.”—Read Matthew 20:28.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/who-is-jesus-christ/#?insight[search_id]=fc45b9c4-b4cf-4798-a58f-3e6445a315e7&insight[search_result_index]=1

The bolded part shows that the life of Jesus does not stop to exist which is the reason your organization can say MICHAEL is another NAME for Jesus Christ.

More importantly JESUS CAME to the earth means He existed somewhere before He came to earth.

The PROPHESY at Dan 9:25 shows when we are to see the Christ. A prophesy has FUTURE fulfillment, not prior fulfilment.
Other translations are thus wrong.

SMH seriously...

JMAN05:
Just know that that is not the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. I wont dwell on what you quoted. those witnesses, if they were here they will answer for themselves, but for the blog, his reasons are clear. You cant hold him for that.

At least I've provided what you asked of me here.

Look at your definition:
It seems you don't understand even your own words. The word that proceeds out of God's mouth is Jesus according to you.

You're too dull for my liken...it's just a shame that you're a time waster.

The WORD was covered with FLESH which we know as JESUS, the HUMAN FLESH is the house that the Word dwells.

Now you've brought another thing - that the word took on flesh. That being the case, the flesh covered the word. The word is inside the flesh in other words.

Did I brought another thing or what THE BIBLE teaches?

So you fully understood my point here but see you later wrote below.

On another occasion, during Jesus' baptism, God spoke. That word that proceeded out of God's mouth at that time is who?

From your puerile point, that word is Jesus. So God was transmitting Jesus to flesh-covered-Jesus.

Yet see this your statement "That being the case, the flesh covered the word. The word is inside the flesh in other words."

Notice the underlined and compare it with the above statement and see how ridiculous you can be.

This has some other implications:

1. Jesus is abstract. But this abstract thing can take up flesh or it can become something or somebody.

2. Jesus are many. there are thus many jesuses. If God speaks, that word that is produced is Jesus.

If you do not agree that there are many Jesuses, even more that a 100 Jesuses, then God cannot speak if Jesus is gone. Because Jesus is that literal word.

Think up nwoke m.

The only implication for person who can't apply logic well.

3. Jesus thus is not God who do produce the word from his mouth.

But the Word is eternal and Alive.

Very simply logic!

Yet couldn't apply the logic very well.

They are the same. Did I say they are not?

See another ridiculous statement below again.

First of all, my using those words, God's knowledge, His knowledge etc, [size=14pt]I was not using them with the thought that they had different meaning. No.[/size]

So if they don't have the different meaning then you're the most confused one.

On the other point. I was just explaining what I said initially, which is: God's omniscience - his ability to know all, cannot be Jesus.

Then what is the meaning of GOD'S KNOWLEDGE? I care to know

Note: I have explained previously that when I said " his knowledge, his omniscience", I was just talking about God's omniscience.

Whether you like change from Omniscient to another thing...God's knowledge, His Knowledge or Knowledge of God has no other meaning.

Please what is the different between God's knowledge and God's omniscient?

[size=14pt]Because God's knowledge is related to His omniscience,[/size] I chose to speak on knowledge. And show that His knowledge is vast. [size=14pt]So even if Jesus is called that knowledge,[/size] it should not be understood to mean that he is the literal knowledge. I gave reasons.

It's evident that Jesus is called knowledge of God but you just decided to give it any meaning that suit your ideology.

Again what is the different between God's Omniscient and God's knowledge?

My words:

Very ridiculous...

So the italic shows that I was explaining what I meant - God's omniscience is not Jesus. [size=14pt]I am not there implying that Jesus is called God's knowledge. No.[/size]

Please just tell me the difference between God's omniscient and God's knowledge.

On the fact that Jesus is not called God's knowledge, I was not being dogmatic [because I ve not checked my concordance to confirm, thats why I went on to comment that even if that is found in the bible, that cannot mean he is a literal knowledge of God or that he knows all that God does. I gave reasons]. However, you have not shown where the bible called Jesus God's knowledge. You just showed where God's knowledge is expressed in His creation. God's knowledge is abstract, it is not a person.

This another fallacy, God's knowledge was not EXPRESSED in His Creation BUT God's knowledge TOOK PART in creation.

Even in the place Jesus was called the power and the wisdom of God what did you say? FIGURATIVE! So even if you find it your conclusion will still be FIGURATIVE.

The matter remains for you to show where the bible called him such.

God through HIS KNOWLEDGE the depth were broken up...but who perform all the act of creation? the pre-existence being who later appeared as man and called Jesus.

Remember where we're coming from before all this, I simply asked [b]what part of God Bible has never called Jesus? And your twisting tongue lead us to this by begin to differentiate between God's knowledge and God's Omniscient as if they mean different things.

You and your organization think you know Jesus FULLY and anyone who think such has turned him/herself to the FATHER because Jesus Himself said “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, [size=14pt]and no one FULLY knows the Son except the Father;[/size] neither does anyone FULLY know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.” Matthew 11:27

I believe you can see what you and your organization claimed.

CANTICLES:
Follow koolking explanation and also the 7 points raised in Captivator's post , and stop givin people unnessesary burden ..... Just Wish u guys could adhere to the apostle pauls fine example found in 1thes 2:9

" surely you remember, brothers, our labor and toil. We were WORKING NIGHT AND DAY, so that we would not put an expensive burden on any of you" ""

You're very funny, I should follow koolking and go against scriptures.

SMH...

I repeat WHERE WAS TITHE CANCELLED IN THE BIBLE?

JMAN05:
Before I respond. Do you agree with what those scholars said on those verses? Again, they never said James had Jesus name in mind.

If I don't agree with them will I quote them

Neither do they say the quotation was to witness of Jehovah.

JMAN05:
Ok! Now you know what we are discussing? Didnt I tell you this when you where segmenting my comments out of context? Now you want to return to what the thread is about? Ok. But any shift by you, I wont reply your post. Bear that in mind man.

Were you not the one who keep shifting the main point of this thread at least I've repeated THE PURPOSE of this thread more than two times.

Oga, Those you quoted above did not say that the name is Jesus, which is your point.

Now can you see life outside? I didn't say it's the name of Jesus BUT WHO JAMES HAVE IN MIND.

So, I refuse to admit that as a good reply. My point is that some who are not JWs even saw that the "name" as spoken of in that verse is about Jehovah God, not Jesus. None above even said the "name" is Jesus. This is another diversion by you. Sorry sir. Try again.

Always understand the point someone is making before you talk.

Oga, you've agreed that true Christians are witnesses of Jehovah. So stop deceiving yourself by saying the apostles witnessed for Jesus, as if it is for him alone. You ve agreed they witnessed for Jehovah too.

Lol...see how the bolded part define your understanding.

If witness for Jesus also means witness for Jehovah this does not prove that the Apostles bear the name Jehovah's witness we can only say witness for Jesus is also witness for Jehovah in some sense not according to the scriptures.

Permit me to import one point here:

Firstly, you are the only one with this misunderstanding because of how hard you understand the scriptures. Your commentary didnt even support you.

When I said James applied those verses to Jesus I didn't mean it is Jesus name that appear their simply because James quoted from OT my point is WHO DOES JAMES HAVE IN MIND BEFORE HE QUOTED FROM OT which was later reinforced in their letter.

I know you will boycott those commentaries because they simply against your understanding of those verses.

James never applied anything to Jesus. We read:

Peter's words first:

Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also.

Which incident was Peter talking about? what happened in Cornelius house. We read:

Act 10:34-43

"At this[b] Peter began to speak[/b], and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all.

Whom do you think is the architect of the good news about Jesus?

"37 You know the subject that was talked about throughout all Ju·de′a, starting from Gal′i·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Naz′a·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil, because God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all the things he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; but they did away with him by hanging him on a stake. 40 God raised this one up on the third day and allowed him to become manifest, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses appointed beforehand by God, to us, who ate and drank with him after his rising from the dead. 42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Do you agree with Peter that all the way, God has been the one spearheading many things about Jesus?

Whom do you think is the architect of the witness about Jesus? The God who anointed Jesus or Jesus who was anointed?

Chapter 11:1, it was stated that what the gentiles accepted was the word of God. So those words spoken by Peter is the word of God. Jehovah is the true architect of all that.

In verse 17 of Chapter 11, we read:

If, therefore, God gave the same free gift to them that he gave to us who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should be able to hinder God?

Who gave the free gift? So even believers in Jesus, God is the one who gives them the holy spirit. inshort even the disciples Jesus had was given to him by Jehovah. This proves that witness about Jesus became a new way of witnessing for Jehovah. In fact, he was His representative of earth.

Having gotten that context, let's go back:

Acts 15:14

Sym′e·on has related thoroughly how [size=16]God[/size] for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name

1. Now, this one is not a prophesy in the "OT", and it has clearly identified who's name James had in mind.

2. Secondly, Do you now get the point? Did you remember what happened when Peter was in the house of the first uncircumcised gentile to become a Christian? Do you now know who has that "name"? Jesus or Jehovah?

Was it not Jehovah who is being discussed here?

James was not deviating from this point in the two verses that followed. He was only supporting this experience of Peter from an "OT" scripture.

so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’

James made a nice quotation from Amos where God's own name appeared. The statement here is isnt about Jesus, but Jehovah.

In verse 26, it was stated that Paul and Barnabas gave there life for the name of Jesus. Your position is that this shows that the "name" spoken of in verse 14 and 17 is Jesus name. That the "OT" scripture was applied to Jesus.

That is very wrong. The point I made above has shown that it was Jehovah's name that was on the discussion, not Jesus'.

The point is about a prophesy which finds fulfillment on what happened in the house of Cornelius, and the story told by Peter. That was the issue here. It was not about a prophesy that finds fulfillment in Jesus. Get that straight.

The problem is whether the uncircumcised gentiles should be accepted as true worshipers of God, it is not about circumcised gentiles to which Paul and Barnabas belonged. So that verse 26 is not in the context of verses 14 - 17.

Secondly, the letter they wrote to this gentiles was not detailing the discussions that took place before the conclusion was reached. Nope! It was only conveying there final decision. The letter is not showing to the gentiles what Peter witnessed and how the "OT" scripture supported it. Never!

They were just conveying there direction which is a product of the discussion they had. Now, the letter went on to describe the reputation and sacrifices Paul and Barnabas had made for Christ's name (which Jehovah elevated). Do the apostles bear Jesus name? Yes. That is a name God had elevated and had given them to proclaim too. And this is part of witnessing for HIM (Jehovah). But this does not bring the "name" here into the context of verse 14.

The result of there long discussion was only conveyed in verse 29. And you can see clearly that they presented there direction which is a product of there discussion. They were in no way saying what was said about God's name by James.

All this your jumping around won't solve the issue here so stop prolonging and deviating from the main issue.

We are looking at the meaning of Acts 15:14, 17 which beg for the question does Acts 15:14, 17 say they SERVE as witness of Jehovah which your organization claimed they are?

So I quoted three different scholars on what James have in mind or how those verses can be understood but you boycott them

Remember you're the first person to quote from Bible commentaries but now that it turns against you, you begin to dance to another tune. So in case you forget here is it again,

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

What I need now is to prove how Acts 15:14, 17 says THEY SERVE AS WITNESS OF Jehovah.

JMAN05:
Can you stop this rubbish? My friend create a thread and stop leading me to an apostate. Any more of that nonsense, I will see it as a sign of not being serious. So stop stop that rubbish, just stop!

What is rubbish in my post here?

Why are you so furious

Apostate thread so what is the different between Younguz and I remember we don't share the same idea of JWs?

Koolking:
Methinks your mind is made up as a pro-tithe. We will go on and on without a valid statement from you to support tithing in the new covenant.

@bold-Likewise there is no valid statement from you in the New Covenant that against Tithe because initially I didn't explain your OP but only quote someone who claimed that Tithe has been cancelled.

It was a bit of a relief to note that you consciously conceded that "some things like burn offering was set aside. It will be out of place and rather illogical annulling an order due to its imperfection and uselessness and yet allow only one of the commandments or what you termed as tasks - tithe to continue.

The bolded part especially @underlined statement shows that you're not yet understood the point the writer of Hebrew was making.
Let me put it this way maybe you can grab it,

1) Tithe and burnt offering predated the establishment of Levitical priesthood.
2) Sacrifice for atonement of sins was FIRST established on Levitical priesthood.

You have to know the important of all these;
*Burnt offering was performed by people of old to seek God's face which is the ONLY way of drawing near to God and first performed by Noah Gen 8:20.
*Sacrifice for atonement of sins was met for FORGIVENESS of sins and first performed on the FIRST chosen PRIESTS Exo 29:14
*TITHE was not recorded concerning anything about man's IMPERFECTION rather God Himself claimed TITHE belong to Him not as a Burnt Offering for man to seek the face of God nor like Sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins BUT what is solely HOLY unto the Lord.

So it was those things that pertain unto man for entering the holy presence of God and forgiveness of sins which can't be attained through burnt offering and sacrifice for atonement THAT WAS IMPERFECT AND USELESS.

These two imperfections (Entering holy place of God with burnt offering and atonement for sins through sacrifice) were the major reason why Jesus came because God didn't want them or please with them. This was reinforced in Hebrew chapter 10:1-22

The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. 2 If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared. 3 But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year. 4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer. 6 You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin. 7 Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God— as is written about me in the Scriptures.’” 8 First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” [size=14pt](though they are required by the law of Moses).[/size] 9 Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” [size=14pt]He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect.[/size] 10 For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time. 11 Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. 12 But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time..., 14 For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies that this is so. For he says, 16 “This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” 17 Then he says, “I will never again remember their sins and lawless deeds.” 18 And when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices. 19 And so, dear brothers and sisters, [size=14pt]we can boldly enter heaven’s Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus.[/size] 20 By his death, Jesus opened a new and life-giving way through the curtain into the Most Holy Place. 21 And since we have a great High Priest who rules over God’s house, 22 let us go right into the presence of God with sincere hearts fully trusting him. For our guilty consciences have been sprinkled with Christ’s blood to make us clean, and our bodies have been washed with pure water. (Bold & underline mine) NLT

With your argument, was considering how you would explain to a non-Christian Hebrews 7 vs 5, 11-13: “And those descendants of Levites who are priests are commanded by the law to collect one tenth from the people of Israel, that is from their own countrymen even though their countrymen are also descendants of Abraham.”

Let's jump to verses 11-13 : “It was on the basis of the Levitical priesthood that the law was given to the people of Israel. Now, if the work of the Levitical priests had been perfect there would be no need for a different kind of priest to appear, one who is in the priestly order of Melchizedek not of Aaron. For when the priesthood is changed, there also has to be a change in the law. And our Lord of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe of Judah and Moses did not mention his tribe when he spoke of priests.”

The above passage is self-explanatory and it states clearly the relationship between the Levitical priesthood and the law given to the priest. Note the bold statements above. In vs 5, we were told that one of the laws given to the Levi priests was to collect tithe. In vs 12, we were told that when the Levitical order was changed, the law also changed. Vs 13, went on to expunge us in the new covenant from the Leviticus laws of tithing as we belong to the order of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thanks for your comments. We are learning

I believe I've provided my view here but you couldn't grab my point still, but what I see here is a mix up of point.

Like I said earlier when verse 12 says For when the priesthood is changed, there also has to be a change in the law does not mean THEIR TASKS IN THE OFFICE but the requirement of choosing PRIEST ONLY in the tribe of Levi this is the point the writer is bringing into light which you couldn't grab even when reading along with verse 13 "And our Lord [size=14pt]of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe of Judah and Moses did not mention his tribe when he spoke of priests.”[/size] (from the translation you used)

So it's the requirement of choosing ANOTHER TRIBE instead of that of LEVI that was CHANGE since the LAW ONLY permitted Levi tribe to be PRIEST.

Please I can't repeat myself anymore over this.

Thanks for your understand.

(Please don't mind my TYPO because I was in haze while replying your post and I couldn't reconcile verse 5 with other part)

Koolking:
Quite brilliant commentary you had up there, but you still did not convince me on the tenability of tithing in the new covenant.

Thanks for your compliment.

The annulling of the Levitical priesthood cancelled tithing and other laws emanating from that imperfect priesthood.

This part is still where confusion lies, but let me put it this way this time maybe you can get my point.

The LAW only recognized Levi tribe to be performing some tasks unto God which TITHE is among but this LAW that placed this AUTHORITY on Levi ONLY must be change since THE NEW PRIEST won't come from that tribe.

So it was the LAW that ALLOWED ONLY Levi to be PRIEST that was disannulled which means another PRIEST must arise and this priest must not come FROM Levi tribe.

If you are saying, [size=14pt]it was the priestly order ONLY that was annulled and not the accompanying laws,[/size] my question is: why is burnt offering not in practice today but only the adulterated version of tithing? Why is modern day tithing a monthly monetary subscription and not yearly/ triennial tithing in crops and livestock commanded by the same law?

@bolded-The LAW or REQUIREMENT is "ONLY Levi tribe can become PRIEST in Israel"
While the task to perform as a PRIEST are: 1) Collection of Tithes, 2) Burnt Offering, 3) Sacrifice for Atonement of sin both theirs and the Israelite.

Please don't confuse the LAW with the task to perform in the office.

Remember this from my earlier post "Though I need not to read into the word of God here because it was not only REQUIREMENT about the priesthood that was set aside, as we later read from the scriptures that some other things were set aside as well which one also PREDATED the day the office of the priests were established i.e BURNT OFFERRING..."

It is imperative to note that neither Jesus nor the Apostles collected or preached about tithe. Therefore, tithing is irrelevant in the Priestly order of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To help you understand better, you may wish to reference your Encyclopedia history – Tithes in Christendom – only then would you realize how tithe crept to the church after many centuries of non-existence.

Respect

At least Jesus had the opportunity to openly condemn Tithe but He didn't.

Of course, not only that Tithe crept to the church some centuries of non-existence, remember the 66 books you carry today was not arranged by Jesus nor the Apostles not after many centuries of non-compilation.

PastorKun:
I don't have much time to dissect and point out all your faulty submissions and essigesis but one thing to note is that Abraham's one off voluntary tithe was voluntary, not of his inc0ome and there is no suggestion in sc0riptures that believers should emulate this one off practise albeit on a regular basis. That said if according to your illogical reasoning christians are still meant to tithe based on your twisted interpretation of that passage, how come there is no record of tithing in the early church? How come the apostles never preached or collected tithes?

Whether Abraham TITHE is voluntary or not is not the point I brought out from that scripture. Remember what I said before you and @koolking quoted my post was UNTIL YOU'RE ALSO ABLE TO SHOW US WHERE JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES CANCELLED TITHES and both of you pointed to Hebrew 7:18 which I went ahead to show you people this particular verse wasn't talking about disannulling of tithe.

@bolded-where did I twist anything on that passage?

So if there is no record of tithe in early Church is not my point here, my point is the statement I made before you people quoted my post.

So I'm still expecting you people to show me where TITHING was cancelled in the Bible.

TrishaP:
That's why I asked for corrections.

Ok! God is not a thing He is a person likewise the Holy spirit but Jehovah's witness argument is that Holy spirit is an ACTIVE/IMPERSONAL FORCE if that's the case 2 Corin 3:17&18 say Jehovah is THE SPIRIT, and THE SPIRIT here (according to rule of definite article 'THE') is pointing to something that has been mentioned earlier (which we can see from the preceding verses) happened to be the HOLY SPIRIT.

Do you understand now?

TrishaP:
These whole articles boils down to a "thing". Your trying to tell us jehovah is a thing..an "idol".
I stand to be corrected

Are you sure you understand the Op?

I have to come with the below meaning of the Definite article ‘THE’ because of mini discussion I had with some JWs about this issue in another thread.

THE determiner (PARTICULAR)
A1 used before nouns to refer to particular things or people that have ALREADY been talked about or are ALREADY known or that are in a situation where it is clear what is happening:
-I just bought a new shirt and some new shoes. The shirt was quite expensive, but the shoes weren't.
-Please would you pass the salt.
-I'll pick you up at the station.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/the?q=The

It is no doubt to any Biblical student that HOLY SPIRIT is sometimes refers to as The Spirit of God, God’s Spirit and The Spirit. In fact the common one in use is The Spirit though Biblical translators sometimes insert the word HOLY as an adjective to describe the attribute of The Spirit where the word HOLY does not appear in the original manuscript.

Apostle Paul in one of his letter to Corinthians gave this brilliant passage about The Holy spirit,

“3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ before God…, He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?..., But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is THE SPIRIT, and where THE SPIRIT of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” 2 Corin 3:3-18, (bold and capital mine) NIV

No doubt that Apostle Paul was talking about the ministerial works of The Holy spirit in the new covenant here which he also interchangeably used the Spirit of the living God and The Spirit (3x) for the Holy spirit.

The most astonish part is that in verse 17 & 18 he wrote “Now the Lord is THE SPIRIT and …which comes from the Lord, who is THE SPIRIT.”

But according to JWs the Lord in those verses is Jehovah (even though the word Jehovah never appeared in any Greek manuscripts) so in their translation they translated those two verses as “Now Jehovah is THE SPIRIT and …exactly as it is done by Jehovah THE SPIRIT.”

Back to the meaning of our definite article ‘THE’ above, THE SPIRIT in verse 17&18 has ALREADY been talked about/known from the preceding verses which means when verse 17 & 18 say “Jehovah is THE SPIRIT and, …exactly as it is done by Jehovah THE SPIRIT“ they’re referring to THE SPIRIT mentioned earlier which happened to be the Holy spirit/the Spirit of the Living God/The Spirit.

Where the problem lies now is, if God’s spirit/the Spirit of God/The Spirit (as anyone can be used for the Holy Spirit) is an ACTIVE FORCE/IMPERSONAL FORCE as JWs believe then this means that Jehovah is an ACTIVE FORCE/IMPERSONAL FORCE.

What I see as the major point in you people’s post is the emphasis on verse 11, 12 & 18.
@Koolking says I should read from verse 11-18 and @Pastorkun says I should start from verse 5 so that I can understand the FULL CONTEXT of the passage but I will like us to start from verse 1 so that we can both understand the FULL CONTEXT of the passage. In fact I so much love how @koolking interpreted that verse 11 as quoted “begins to draw a contrast between levitical priesthood being imperfect and the need for another priesthood in the pattern or order of Melchizedek and no longer after the order of Aaron.” BUT I disagree with your concluded part “This means that, TITHING which was one of the LAWS governing levitical priesthood was also change.” The reason why I disagree with it is that, TITHING predated the LAW and the laws was ONLY a regulation on who have right to collect TITHE which was later placed at Levi TRIBE.

Now back to the analysis of Hebrew 7:1-18
NOTE: The Bible verse will appear in color

Verse 1-3, was about the attributes of Melchizedek and the blessing he placed upon Abraham before Abraham paid Tithe of all to him: “This Melchizedek was king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High. When Abraham was returning home after winning a great battle against the kings, Melchizedek met him and blessed him. Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had captured in battle and gave it to Melchizedek. The name Melchizedek means “king of justice,” and king of Salem means “king of peace.” There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.”

Verse 4, emphasized on how the great Abraham could RECOGNISE the greatness of Melchizedek the unknown priest: “Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized this by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle.”

Verse 5, is about how the priesthood was placed in the tribe of Levi who are the descendant of Abraham to collect Tithe NOT that Tithe was established through them: “Now the law of Moses required that the priests, who are descendants of Levi, must collect a tithe from the rest of the people of Israel, who are also descendants of Abraham.”

Verse 6, emphasized on how Melchizedek who had not his ORIGIN in Abraham or his linage could collect TITHE from Abraham himself whom even the linage of PRIESTS who collected tithe was placed: ”But Melchizedek, who was not a descendant of Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God.”

Verse 7 -8, point out that, Melchizedek has POWER to bless as he blessed Abraham which means he is far greater than Abraham, and most importantly the Levitical priest are just human as they die and another priest is being raised to continue in collection of TITHE but Melchizedek LIVES forever which means his own collection of tithe continues: “And without question, the person who has the power to give a blessing is greater than the one who is blessed. The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on.”

Verse 9-10, these verses made it clear that even the CHOSEN Levite priests who collected tithe ALSO paying tithe indirectly to Melchizedek as a result of what Abraham did: “In addition, we might even say that these Levites—the ones who collect the tithe—paid a tithe to Melchizedek when their ancestor Abraham paid a tithe to him. For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.”

Verse 11, though this verse needs an in-depth attention because without that, verse 12 couldn’t be understood. The main point here is that, the LAWS which is to govern who can collect Tithe, how Tithe should be collected and what to Tithe was based on the PRIESTHOOD of LEVI this is more evident since TITHING predated the govern laws and not that TITHING was established the very day the law was given: “So if the priesthood of Levi, on which the law was based, could have achieved the perfection God intended, why did God need to establish a different priesthood, with a priest in the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Levi and Aaron?” So here a new priesthood needs to be established in the ORDER of Melchizedek who LIVES forever.

Verse 12, with what we understood from verse 11 above on how the LAW was BASED on the PRIESTHOOD, so since the priesthood must be change; that is, changing from mortal men priests to immortal man priest, the law THAT BASED this PRIESTHOOD on LEVI TRIBE MUST also changes because this new immortal man priest won’t come from the tribe of Levi: [color=brown]“And if the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it.” This is more reinforced in verse 13.

Verse 13-14, since the law had placed PRIESTHOOD on Levi tribe and the new PRIEST who never comes from this tribe MUST replaced the mortal men priests then the law who established the Levitical PRIESTHOOD must also change: “For the priest we are talking about belongs to a different tribe, whose members have never served at the altar as priests. What I mean is, our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned priests coming from that tribe.”

Verse 15, now that a new priest had arrived in the ORDER of Melchizedek.
1) The mortal Levitcal priests always chosen according to the law has been dissolved which means we’re no longer having a priest chosen in the law.

2) And since the new immortal priest in the ORDER of Melchizedek who collected Tithe and lives forever has appeared then TITHING continues: “This change has been made very clear since a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has appeared.”

Verse 16, shows that Jesus as a new priest wasn’t qualified to be the priest if we should follow the requirement of the law as He did not come from Levi tribe: “Jesus became a priest, not by meeting the physical requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed.”

Verse 17, And the psalmist pointed this out when he prophesied, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”

Verse 18, this is the crucial part. It was the REQUIREMENT of chosen the PRIESTHOOD that was set aside/disannulled not TITHING itself. “Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless.” This requirement must set aside since the NEW priest isn’t going to come from Levi TRIBE.

(Though I need not to read into the word of God here because it was not only REQUIREMENT about the priesthood that was set aside, as we later read from the scriptures that some other things were set aside as well which one also PREDATED the day the office of the priests were established i.e BURNT OFFERRING but according to this verse it is only “the requirement of chosen priest that disannulled” which is the main point the writer wants to bring out by considering the preceding verse 16.)

If you’re not being paying TITHE consider these:
1) The mortal men priests have been change to an immortal man priest in the ORDER of Melchizedek.
2) One of the rites performed by Melchizedek is that he collected TITHE from Abraham even when the Levitical priesthood has not been set up.
3) So TITHING never cancelled according to this chapter rather there's an immortal priest who had replaced the mortal men priest in the ORDER of Melchizedek.


All quotations are from New Living Translation (NLT)

JMAN05:
Go and segment by segment respond to all my posts. some of what you posted had been answered already there.

waiting...

This is just a lame excuse.

The purpose of this thread is to iron out wrong interpretation that JWs gave to Acts 15:14, 17 to mean True Christians SERVE as witness of Jehovah which is far from what the verses are saying.

So you quoted from Bible commentaries on 1 Peter 2 to buttress your claim of Acts 15 and since you can from scholars commentaries I went ahead to show you how scholars also INTERPRETED that Acts 15 not as JWs interpreted it to suit their erroneous claim.

In case you forget this is what scholars say about James quoting from OT book of Amos:

"This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing." Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises." Adam Clarke

"To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein ex ethnôn laon tôi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnôn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give." Robertson

The purpose of this thread still remains, JWs have wrongfully interpreted those verses which end up calling the Faithful Apostles a false Christian because none of them witness of Jehovah RATHER both The Father, The Holy spirit, Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, The Apostles and Christians ARE ALL witness of Jesus.

JMAN05:
Jah is a spirit being, a spirit person. His holy spirit on the other hand is not a person. it is an impersonal force.

Lol...what is the meaning of THE SPIRIT in 2 Corin 3:17 is my question not whether Jehovah is a person or not?

-the holy spirit is God's active force. it isn't a person. When it is at work on the prophets, it impels them to predict the future.

2Pet 1:21

Then Jehovah is an active force just wait for my thread on this.

Who is taking it to mean a human? abeg dont start given me another work. Go check what trinitarians mean by "person". Don't create unnecessary work for me. If you don't know your subject, keep mom.

I should check what Trinitarians say about 'person' or you should stop using your ideology of JWs view of God as person to interpret Trinitarians view because Trinitarians believe The Father, The Son and The Holy spirit are person YET they can still DWELL in our NATURE so that should tell you that you don't know what Trinitarians mean by PERSON of the Godhead.

Oga, it was that rendering in the NWT that I had in mind when I quoted that verse.

God's holy spirit is His active force.

We talk more on the next thread u guys will create.

Don't shift the discussion to Bruce. You can create another thread for renderings in the NWT if you like.

So that's why you have to apply it to other verses...

No I don't shift issue but what is on ground, so no need of creating another thread I know you people purposely avoid this thread by @Younguz

https://www.nairaland.com/1883337/what-notable-bible-scholars-said