₦airaland Forum

JMAN05:
And the verse is not saying that Christ followed them nor that he was active. He was just drawing a type from that incident.

I don't need to argue with you much on this because anything that doesn't favour JWs is figurative but see what this scholar says:

"The spiritual rock that followed them There is some difficulty in this verse. How could the rock follow them? It does not appear that the rock ever moved from the place where Moses struck it. But to solve this difficulty, it is said that rock here is put, by metonymy, for the water of the rock; and that this water did follow them through the wilderness. This is more likely; but we have not direct proof of it. The ancient Jews, however, were of this opinion, and state that the streams followed them in all their journeyings, up the mountains, down the valleys, &c., &c.; and that when they came to encamp, the waters formed themselves into cisterns and pools; and that the rulers of the people guided them, by their staves, in rivulets to the different tribes and families. And this is the sense they give to Nu 21:17: Spring up, O well, &c. See the places in Schoettgen.

Others contend, that by the rock following them we are to understand their having carried of its waters with them on their journeyings. This we know is a common custom in these deserts to the present day; and that the Greek verb akolouyew, to follow, has this sense, Bishop Pearce has amply proved in his note on this place. The Jews suppose that the rock itself went with the Israelites, and was present with them in their thirty-eight stations, for only so many are mentioned. See Alschech in legem. fol. 236. And see Schoettgen.

Now, though of all the senses already given that of Bishop Pearce is the best, [size=14pt]yet it does appear that the apostle does not speak about the rock itself, but of Him whom it represented; namely, Christ: this was the Rock that followed them, and ministered to them;[/size] and this view of the subject is rendered more probable by what is said 1Co 10:9, that they tempted Christ, and were destroyed by serpents. Adam's Clarke's commentary

Hope you can understand what Apostle Paul was saying.

We can.

That referring to past activity carried out by Michael in the OT with the new name Jesus Christ as JWs said, right?

They had no clear understanding of the message, so how will they know that Michael will later become the Christ, not to talk of "having" his spirit.

See another misunderstanding of the scripture, who told you they didn't UNDERSTAND THE MESSAGE? Notice you said message but what the verse says is SEARCHING THE TIME and there's evidence in the NT that Christ was active in the OT.

The issue is about rearrangement. The rearrangement is not grammatically wrong nor is it scripturally wrong. And you are?

I won't allow you to dodge this my point here again

"This is not about learning in fact we will continue to learn till Jesus comes.
But the point is centred on what we learn from, the New World Translation you claimed to be learning from was translated by none scholarly people who doesn't possess any knowledge about the Original languages in which Bible was written.

Remember what leads to this is the rendering of 1 Peter 1:11 which you claimed you will take the word of these Bible students OVER that of Greek scholars."

How can you take the word of none scholar over scholars?
And I have shown you how rearrangement can change the meaning of a sentence. So the onus is on you to decide.

I'm a good Bible student and I'm still learning from scholars who know more than me.

Reading your post makes it clear that you've used your previous knowledge to address this thread which has lead to the misunderstanding of my post and the purpose of this thread.

Let me refresh the purpose of this thread to you and to show you that I never change my statement nor do I contradict myself.

JMAN05:
How did James apply it to Jesus, and how did your commentary support this? You ve not clarified yourself because he cant apply it to Jesus, and the "name" wont be Jesus'. I no be kid. You went ahead to use verse 26 to support your point.

You are now stating another thing which James had in mind. You are not being straight Emusan. be kind to yourself and be straight. You conveyed the sense that James had Jesus in mind, now you are saying another thing.

2. to your last comment.

you said: "The fact is James quoted those verses to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfilment in Jesus Christ which is also the reason why Jesus can tell Paul that he will BEAR HIS NAME before the Gentiles."

And I asked:

Does your commentary support that those verses were quoted by James to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ? Was James ever buttressing such point at all?

Does your commentary support the point you said James buttressed? That's the issue here.

Now let me start with this,
I made this statement @OP I believe the purpose of referring to these verses is the underlined words "his name & my name" but what actually happen here?"

It was stressed out from the OP that the reason why JWs quoting those verses is because of THE NAME that appeared in those verses in which I didn't border to explain further SINCE THIS THREAD ISN'T CENTERED ON the NAME but why the truth in the scripture by LISTING ALL THE PEOPLE who Witness for Jesus including The Father and The Holy spirit.

I also said it somewhere else that the name in those verses wasn't Jesus' name BUT WHO JAMES HAVE MIND.
So with this in mind I believe you should've understood my point that you quoted when I said "The fact is James quoted those verses to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfilment in Jesus Christ which is also the reason why Jesus can tell Paul that he will BEAR HIS NAME before the Gentiles."

If the underlined posed a confusion to you then let me reframe what I mean "how this OT prophecy is fulfilled during the advent of Jesus Christ BUT ALL WHAT THEY (The Apostles) HAVE IN MIND AND WITNESS TO IS THE NAME OF JESUS" once this is understood then you can get where I'm coming from.

[size=14pt]Those in the new covenant are true Christians, who are Jehovah's witnesses.[/size] You agreed that the spiritual replaced the natural. So if the gentiles are now allowed among them, they are allowed among Jehovah's witnesses. That achieves the purpose of the thread.

@bolded-We're true Christians but we 're not Jehovah's witness get that into your head.

The spiritual replaced the natural BUT MANY THING ALSO HAPPENED IN BETWEEN so the True Christians Witness of Jesus Christ just has been COMMANDED BY Jesus Christ Himself what everybody including The Father and The Holy spirit did.

However, this is not your point dear. You stated why James made the quotation - how OT prophecies find fulfillment in Jesus Christ. If you ve changed your position, say it. We all learn. But if you ve not change that position, then I might not accept your having a contradictory positions.

I didn't change any position rather it's your gross misunderstanding of my post which you can still repeat here which I have explained above.

Even if we are to accept what you say, the purpose of our quoting the article is justified. But this is not your initial position. Tell me if your position is now changed to this.

You keep clamouring about changing position, can't you read in between the line?

Whereas you previously said it was about a name - Jesus'. Have you changed? Accepting the coming of gentiles into where - true christians - Jehovah's witnesses. not so?

Please show me where I SAID THE NAME IS JESUS, if you can't then you have to agree that you lie about what I didn't say.

You were talking about "name" - Jesus', and the commentary you gave never supported you, while mine support mine. Why then will you quote what has no relation to your point? to keep extending the thread?

Show me where I said the name in those verses is Jesus, you repeated this lie again.

The purpose of this thread is WHO ARE THE APOSTLES WITNESS TO as against the CLAIM OF JWs in UNDERSTANDING OF Acts 15

So as it stands now, those commentaries are still valid and exposed how JWs is being perverted the meaning of Biblical statement to suit their false teaching.
These are the commentaries 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

So it's evident that Acts 15 never says "True Christians SERVE as witness of Jehovah" as your organization claimed.

The emphasis according to you is that the gentiles will now be among people called by God's name. Who are they? Jehovah's witnesses.

Firstly, the emphasis is not on the NAME the emphasis is an evidence for the Jews to accept the Gentiles which James did.
Lastly, is it only Gentiles that are being called by God's name? What of the Apostles who are Israelite?
Funny you can still conclude that they are Jehovah's witness, so the Apostles are only Jesus witness while Gentiles ALONE are Jehovah's witness.

And I ve given you a link that handle it.

What I said is ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE I didn't say you give me JWs fabrication OR to quote scripture again is hard for you?

Your new view is not against the point. If you agree that True Christians are Jehovah's witnesses, the point balance.

I will ask again if you agree that True Christians are Jehovah's witness then why do you think that other Christian denominations are not TRUE CHRISTIAN? and that will falsify your organization claim that only you people are Jehovah's witness.

Kay17:
BUT God ordered it. does the unchangeable God have a change of heart?!

I believe you're more intelligent and you're able to differentiate between "PRESCRIPTIVE" and "DESCRIPTIVE" the Old Testament events are descriptive and NOT prescriptive.

Beside if you read the content of those verses with an open heart you can get the message the writers are passing across.

Trustworthiness:
Please i need christians who are well knowledgeable about the teachings of Jesus Christ to help in answering the following questions.

Are you knowledgeable enough to accept the truth?

1. What is the Concept of God in Christianity?

God is the creator of heavens and earth, who has no beginning and end, and who has shown His love as a Father to us by sending His ONLY Son to die for our death.

2. Who is Jesus? God, Son of God, Son of Man?

Both and not only these because Jesus has many names & titles and they all signify to something.

3. If the word Christian derived from christ, which means follower christ. Then what are we going to call Jesus christ himself?

The Master who gave His life as a ransom to many.

4. Following the question 3 above, what is the religion of christ.

Judaism.

5. Why do we have gospel "ACCORDING TO" Mark, Matthew, Luke, John etc and not Gospel "BY" JESUS or "ACCORDING TO" JESUS? Not even gospel BY Mark, Matthew, Luke, John etc?

Gospel simply means "Good News" so if you complete it, it will read "The GOOD NEWS ACCORDING TO Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
Jesus didn't write any book but don't confuse the meaning of GOSPEL with BOOK, the life of Jesus is the GOSPEL itself.

Allah said he gave Jesus The Gospel have you ever asked yourself what is the GOOD NEWS given to Jesus is all about?

Please, make reference to Jesus statements from the Bible to prove your point. And let be mature in the answering of the Question.

No need for this now.

LucemFerre:
Mmm... "False dilemma..." Actually there are 3...
3. Life has always existed...
And now that you have introduced an "intelligent source (God)" to the first possibility even make the possibilities 4.

I just want to get it right, life has always existed ON EARTH or where?

Actually, this thread have been created since 2013 when I'm still used to debate with Atheist but unlike now that I don't do such anymore. So I only want to say this to clarify the reason why I respond to you people's post.

EvilBrain1:
Again, the theory of evolution doesnt address where life came from,

Whereas the OP isn't about evolution which means you're just shouting upon your own reason not to address the OP.

Obviously youre not addressing the theory of evolution because you clearly lack even a basic, child-like understsnding of it.

The OP is addressing EARLY LIFE and not evolution, so I don't see the reason why you would make this statement.

And what the hell is an "evolutionist"? That is a word that Ive only ever heard anti-science crackpots use. Maybe its crackpotese for "biologist". Please confirm or deny.

Please sir check your dictionary unless you want to tell me that this word doesn't exist.

CANTICLES:
JMAN05, dont waste ur time with that guy, [b]he himself knows Act 15: 14,17 didnt mention the name of Jesus [\b] . CLEARLY WRITEN FOR everyone followin the thread

You've been forced to come out of that hidden place of your but your coming out isn't good at all because (oya ni e) means you jump anyhow.

So take this advice next time try to read between the line AND UNDERSTAND what the point is all about before you jump into matter.

I know you've been deceived beyond measure about the NAME there without knowing the purpose of James' citation.

JMAN05:
You certainly have a problem. You keep responding out of context, and I warned you. Now, you ve ended up avoiding the response to those your out-of-context comments. I know you will repeat it again. Lets keep watching...

Imaging I respond out of context, I just don't know what to even say here to you but just let me keep going.

You said James applied that prophesy to Jesus. With that, you are insinuating that the "name" there is Jesus'. Secondly, how can what James said differ from what he had in mind? Does you commentary support this?

2. Does your commentary support that those verses were quoted by James to buttress his point of how the OT prophecies find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ? Was James ever buttressing such point at all?

I believe I've clarified what I mean when I said James applied it to Jesus.

What James had in mind is that the Jews NEED evidence from their own scriptures to accept the coming of Gentiles NOT as JWs misinterpreted that verse.

The commentaries are very clear to understand, James buttressed his point by quoting from their own scripture.

Stop what you can also say. Just stop where I stopped. I want to clarify something there. You've agreed that true Christians are witnesses of Jehovah. Bear Jehovah in mind too. Thats the point. Dont move out of context again.

But you know on basis I agreed which you never answer, so if witness of Jesus is also witness of Jehovah then ALL the true Christians are Witness of Jehovah or Jehovah's witness then who are the TRUE CHRISTIAN according to the scripture?

Whom does he have in mind? and how does what he has in mind differ from the point Peter made or even the context of the discussion? Where did your commentary support all these?

I have made a detailed comment about the context of the discussion. That shows whom he has in mind.

The citation of the OT by James is to give evidence that Gentiles must be partaker of the NEW CONVENANT not to claim that they SERVE as witness of Jehovah which is the point we are making here the evidence in the Bible is that The Apostles witness of Jesus even The Father also witness of His Son.

There must be a good reason for your quoting a reference work, if not, we keep extending the thread unnecessarily. I quoted a reference work above to support my point about the name that appeared in that verse. Your point differ from mine, yet the commentary you gave never supported your point.

This is the where we're going, JWs ONLY emphasized on THE NAME ALONE whereas the PURPOSE of that verse IS NOT on the NAME but evidence that Gentiles must be part of the NEW covenant.

Now let me quote those commentary again so that you can see where you and your organization missed the point.

"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. [size=14pt]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."[/size] Albert Barnes'

"As St. James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, [size=14pt]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,[/size] 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. [size=14pt]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."[/size] Robertson

So with this you can see that James point wasn't about THE NAME but the reason why the JEWS must accepted the coming of the Gentiles.

So JWs misinterpreted that verse to suit their own purpose.

The commentaries you quoted did not all say that the name there isnt God's. read down the Robertson commentary and see where it explains "name".

Whereas the purpose of James quoting those verses is not ABOUT NAME get that into your head.

Nope. Please respond to that post for in fact those comments are the main issue here. However, remember that the purpose of the thread has been achieved greatly.

Yes as you can see that the emphasis is not about THE NAME that appeared BUT EVIDENCE for the JEWs to accept them.

You agreed that the natural replaced the spiritual Israelite. Am I right? You ve also agreed that true Christians are JWs.

The commentary you quoted (remember it does not support you at all) shows that the purpose of James quotation is that God had accepted the gentiles into the spiritual Israelites - this Israelites that replaced the natural. There you have it - the gentiles came into the congregation that bore Jehovah's name, thus they are Jehovah's witnesses. Isaiah 43:7, 10

I've also demanded of you question about who are the TRUE CHRISTIAN according to the scriptures?

(The funny thing is when you people want to against TITHE you people will say we are not Israelite so we are not to TITHE but now you can remember that we spiritual Israelite have replaced the natural Israelite.) I didn't say you should respond to this here just so funny the way you people reason.

So the point isn't about natural or spiritual Israelite the point here is on those verses James quoted.

Did those verses say TRUE CHRISTIAN SERVE as witness of Jehovah (as your organization claimed) or why the Jews must accept the coming of the Gentiles?

JMAN05:
I was responding to your cancellation here:
"Will we" are the intended words.

Ok

Look at this words from Barne's Note 'cos I see you find it hard to understand the scriptures, maybe your fellow trinitarian can open your head:

1 Corinthians 10:4
This cannot be intended to be understood literally, for it was not literally true. The rock from which the water flowed was evidently an ordinary rock, a part of Mount Horeb; and all that this can mean is, that that rock, with the stream of water thus gushing from it, was a representation of the Messiah. The word was is thus often used to denote similarity or representation, and is not to be taken literally.

If this trinitarian cant convince you, I wonder who will. But try and improve your bible study, we all learn.

The problem you have is inability to comprehend simple statement.
In my post I didn't say Jesus is a literally ROCK had it been you pay close attention to my previous post you will discover that I BOLDEN and UNDERLINDED this sentence "...For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant* the Christ" and I went further to say "It's called SPIRITUAL ROCK and this SPIRITUAL ROCK used to FOLLOW them."

So which means Paul was telling us that Christ was active in OT. SMH

Another out of context quotation. Please read the whole sentence meditatively so as to understand. This time, have the context in mind.

In a discussion about the title "Christ", see what that Insight book says on it:

"The coming of the Christ, the one whom Jehovah would anoint with his spirit to be the Messianic King, had been foretold centuries before Jesus’ birth. (Da 9:25, 26) However, at his birth, Jesus was not yet the Anointed One or Christ. In foretelling his birth, the angel instructed Joseph: “You must call his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:21) But when the shepherds near Bethlehem were given the angelic announcement, in anticipation of Jesus’ future role they were told: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord,” that is, “who is to be Christ the Lord.”—Lu 2:11, ftn."

Of course the discussion is about the Christ as you claimed but the question is, WHO became that Christ? Archangel Michael! Does Michael active in the OT? Yes! when Michael was active does it mean when he became Christ we can't used the new name 'CHRIST' to refer to his early activities? I believe you can't deny this which is the point here.

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

But that doesn't mean this new name can be used to refer to his early active since it's still the same Michael that was VISIBLE to us and bear a name CHRIST beside the point here is different from what you took it to mean it only says the message they were receiving is not meant for them but we.

Do you believe that ^^

When you don't even know the meaning of the verse.

We humbly believe that we keep learning from Jehovah. The so called scholars keep learning too, but they dont want to admit that. Mind you, this does not mean that Jehovah's witnesses do not have those with secular bible scholarship. We do have those who pass through our bible schools. But you must admit that you dont know it all since even Jesus do not claim to know it all nor the apostles. [This is by the way].

This is not about learning in fact we will continue to learn till Jesus comes.
But the point is centred on what we learn from, the New World Translation you claimed to be learning from was translated by none scholarly people who doesn't possess any knowledge about the Original languages in which Bible was written.

Remember what leads to this is the rendering of 1 Peter 1:11 which you claimed you will take the word of these Bible students OVER that of Greek scholars.

You miss the point again. The issue here is the title "Christ". That title was not borne by Jesus prior to his coming to the earth. This does not mean that Jesus never existed in heaven as Michael, Nope! He did, but he was not the Christ in heaven before coming to the earth. He only acquired that title after his anointing on earth during his baptism. Consider again what I said above:

If Jesus exists in heaven as Michael, does he not active in the OT? Michael was active!
Now that his life was transferred to earth and (his spiritual body in heaven is lifeless as illogical reason of Michael being Jesus) and was given a new name on earth as CHRIST does it mean we can use his new name to refer to his early active? We can!

Today Christian including you we say Paul persecuted the early Church YET we know it's SAUL who actually persecuted them but why are will still using PAUL?

In fact this is enough for you to see that you're not a good Bible student.

JMAN05:
It may not be your fault entirely, but you never gave the belief of JWs as you claim. But it's ok, just take the correction.

And it will never be, I repeat for me to provide a link where a JWs support my idea means there might be some JWs who hold to that teaching but the reason you asked for prove is to think that I was the one who just read into what JWs never believe.

You are just saying the same thing, but you seem to misunderstand my own point.

Rather you didn't understand yourself.

Jesus is that LITERAL word of God that COMES out of God's mouth.

For the last time, THE WORD OF GOD dwell in the FLESH which was given the name JESUS Christ THE WORD didn't CHANGE TO JESUS get it clear because I won't repeat it again.

If the Jesus that came on earth is the word which a flesh covers, did God stop speaking when Jesus came on earth? Nope.

Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN.

If God still speaks, what issues forth from his mouth at that time is Jesus because, according to you, Jesus is the literal word of God.

Did the WORD CHANGE to Jesus? Until you're able to the difference between CHANGE TO and DWELL IN.

So when God spoke to the fleshly-covered Jesus, [size=14pt]he was transmitting the uncovered Jesus[/size] to the fleshly-covered Jesus. This is quite simple!

In fact how can an intelligent being made that @bolded statement? When JESUS is the name given to His FLESH why the WORD still remains THE WORD.

2. If you posit that Jesus is God's word incarnate. And you go on to say that there is still the divine word of God in heaven. This is the implication:

- It means that Jesus is not God, because God is not an incarnate of His word, rather, [size=14pt]His word is a part of Him.[/size]

Don't tell you hold to Unitarian view of Jesus being God with this your statement.

I love that bolded part, then it also means that Jesus is not created and fully divine, and you say His word is a part of Him then Jesus is God since anything as part of God is God.

However, you hold to the belief that Jesus is that literal word that comes out of God's mouth. Do you want to change that position?

You hold to believe that Jesus is created and not God, do you want to change that position?

It is left for you to prove how the bible imply what you are saying about the expression "word". Your position is against your trinitarian teaching, and its creating more jesuses.

Stop making fool of yourself by saying Jesuses, you believe Holy spirit to be an active force of God yet He can rest on more than five people at a time. Does that mean we have many Holy spirits?

I dont understand the point you made there.

I mean you fully understood my point that THE WORD DWELLS in FLESH not that the WORD CHANGE to HUMAN yet could make those statement again.

Tell us how. Remember your position:

Jesus is that LITERAL word that COMES out of God's mouth.

Jesus took on flesh, but some literal words still came out of God's mouth. Wont this stand mean that those literal words that came out of God's mouth while Jesus was on earth were Jesus?

What made that point and the ones below illogical?

Tired of repetition read above again.

Thats not what we are discussing for now. I said:

It's part of it.

Is God the word he himself produces?

Unitarian view.

How?
I dont see how that relates to the points I made to which you are replying.

It relates sir because you're trying to portrait it as if God's knowledge is different from God's omniscient.

Just accept my position, and reply me accordingly.

I should just accept

On omniscience, I said his ability to know all. Knowledge on the other hand is not an ability. They are related, but has a slight difference in meaning.

What does God knowledge mean? Simple!

You ve not provided that evidence.

What will you say before?

Stop shifting the discussion. You still have not provided the evidence. The proverb is just describing God's abstract qualities, which understanding is inclusive. These things are not persons.

I didn't shift anything.

Funny it's now that proverb is describing the abstract qualities of God but you people can claim that Proverb 8 is about Jesus even though is talking about WISDOM.

dolphinheart:
What scripture passages back up ur belief in these creed?

Your own is to look at the creed and point out anywhere that is not scriptural.

dolphinheart:
Looking at the scriptures u quoted, Unless we agree that the holy spirit is also the father. [size=14pt]It is not possible to assume that the holy spirit is a person like God.[/size]
If the father is also the holy spirit . Then they are not two persons but rather one person exhibiting two personalities which goes contrary to the trinity doctrine which emphasises co equality of 3 persons . If the father is not the holy spirit , then how do we explain that the spirit is jehovah.

The problem you're having is to think the Father alone is YAHWEH in the Godhead.

The bolded part is wrong WE ARE NOT ASSUMED but how the Bible describes Holy spirit as a person, this verse is one of them.

Bwon:
Bro you think the Goodnews hasn't reached the world yet Even where legs can can't go devices have gone there.

You said DEVICES as if 100% of the world are now internet literate.
Beside just do research you can know better.

chigoizie7:
Thanks so much, but please give me references to all that u ve answered. I really do appreciate ur candid response.

Please permit me to ask, reference to what?

lahchi:
you just right words without checking the facts of what I wrote... tithe is given to levites who r d priest.. Christians are of d priesthood of God and so Christians are not to pay tithe but if u do it simply implies that u are an Israelites. remember tithe is a law and d law has been abolished thats why we are under the grace that Christ brought... its better u accept the truth and live in the truth... ignorance is nor an excuse for u knw nw... and also I dont knw kun... so don't have d preconceived notion that he taught me anything.

I have to recheck my previous post to be sure I quoted the right person and I found out that I actually quoted the right person.

Please check the person this post meant for.

EvilBrain1:
Because Darwins evolution explains everything that happened after the first life showed up.

When you don't even know how the first life showed up

All of Darwins predictions have turned out to be true, the theory agrees with discoveries Darwin wasnt aware of (eg Mendelian inheritance) and oerfectly explains new discoveries that Darwin never even dreamed of and is supported by a mountain of observatuonal and experimental evidence, more than any other theory in all of science. Of course, nobody is claiming that evolution is the be all, end all;

Yet you still called it THEORY.

but its vastly superior to any other explanation for life on earth including the God did it with magic theory that religious people prefer.

I can't just stop laughing...WHEN THIS THEORY DOESN'T explain how life showed up in the first place you still find it superior to God who created the FIRST life.

And by the way, evolution doesnt deal with how life first appeared, that field is called Abiogenesis. You should look it up, there have been a lot of very interesting discoveries in recent years.

You and your brother/sister still hold the same view about my post.

Like I replied to his/her post, I didn't address the THEORY of evolution BUT what EVOLUTIONIST says about origin of life.

Hope you can get the gist now?

Yet we have not seen transition of one animal to another animal.

Bwon:
Moments when i wonder when christ would come. The bible says like a thief in the night right ? isn't it night already.... All the signs have virtually happened in our eyes and yet the end is not here yet? Sin is a normal thing people don't get criticized for sin anymore Sin are now been based on human rights i.e You can do whatever you like because it your right to do so.... Won''t Majority of the world wax cold with every passing time. Brethren lets encourage one another For the End would surely come But when? no1 knows but we know its like a thief in the night be prepared.

That means you never read your Bible very well.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come." Matt 24:14 ASV

Ask yourself has the Gospel been preached in the WHOLE WORLD?

If your answer is Yes! Then your thread is meaningful and a serious problem to Christendom but if it is NO! then your thread is meaningless.

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.