₦airaland Forum

coogar:
i cannot understand a single thing you wrote up there.
don't refer me to any post in 2005. it muddles up the argument. kindly state your case why you feel the tithes collected every month should be divided equally among the whole congregation.

Of course, you can't! OK here is the breakdown:

- God said the tither himself should eat the tithe.
- Alternatively, God also said the tither himself should spend "tithe" money on whatsoever his heart pleased.

EDIT This was to be done in the company of other "tithers" i.e. what you call "the congregation" --- so each member of the "congregation" was supposed to take part in eating and jollifying themselves with the tithes!

But here you say that tithes are only for the "church"; so who do you want us to believe: God or you?

For the benefit of those who were asking about the Hebrews 7 point, again here is an old post on that point. From here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-685535.0.html#msg8477468

Hebrews 7

Verse 5

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Verses 11 & 12

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12[b]For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.[/b]

Verses 18 & 19

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

In other words: "tithing" has been "disannulled" (abolished) along with the Levitical priesthood on which it was based: both have been replaced by the bringing in of a better hope (which makes things perfect) and by which we draw nigh unto God.

coogar:
the sole purpose of tithing is provision for the church - there should be no lack of means or money to carry out God's work.
sharing equally like the 40 thieves in ali-baba must be your own wet dreams.

Well, let me show you what the Bible says: I will use an old post of mine for the purpose; (in fact, let me also tell you now that none of your arguments is new; we have exposed them all to be false before and we have been doing so since 2005)

I will use that my post from the following link just exactly as I first wrote it: from here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-685535.0.html#msg8497302


If there are three types of "tithes", and one of them is below

Deuteronomy 14

23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always.

then, when last did any tithe preacher preach that as it is important to learn to revere the Lord your God always, every month you must take a tithe of your income and throw a party and jollify yourself with it. Oh, and you should do this in church every month! Why? If storehouse now equals "church" what about "the place where God chooses as a dwelling for his name"? That has to be the church too kẹ! Therefore, every month "tithers" should throw a "tithe party" in church and jollify themselves with a "tithe" in addition to paying the Malachi "tithe" into church.

Meanwhile, give me a bit of time to work out how we sort out the third "tithe", you know the one --- that one for widows, orphans etc. Come to think of it, I don't recall any "tithe" preacher telling us we should do that one or how!

Hmmm anyway ṣha, we now know that every month, "tithers" must pay at least 30% in tithes! Cool.

Examples of pastors that by law can definitely be said without fear of libel (or more importantly, fear of God) to have misappropriated tithes:

1. Matthew Ashimolowo
2. Douglas Goodman
3. Robert Tilton.

This is just a few; many more can be given.

Many others have been shown with reasonable proof to have most likely misappropriated "tithes". These will include Eddie Long, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch etc. In fact, here the list that can be given is extremely lengthy but no need to go that far.

If we are to close our eyes and leave them to it, then this question arises: why did Jesus not leave the money-changers to it and instead chase them out of the temple? Why did He so often speak against these very "pastors" warning against them? Why did He so often speak against the equivalent of these very "pastors" in His own days?

coogar:
are the tithes meant to be shared equally by the congregation each month?

If your argument is that "tithing" as the Bible teaches it is for Christians today, then the answer is YES they are meant to be shared by the congregation "equally" (depending on how we interprete "equally" each month.

^^ You mean you still don't realise that what you said is that you disagreed with Joagbaje totally? Well, all good then.

Can't resist this! 

newmi:
[quote author=Joagbaje link=topic=707140.msg8822179#msg8822179 date=1312049199]He only give us opportunity to position ourselves for receiving.  Jesus threw more light on it here.

Luke 4:25-27
25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.


Simple illustration of Jesus in summary :  Elisha helped Naaman ,Elijah helped the widow. Finish .

Gbam!
l couldn't agree any less.[/quote]Do you realise that means you disagree completely and agree with nothing in the statement you quoted?

@Joagbaje

If in truth there is no contradiction between the teaching of Christ and of Paul why would there be a need to choose? Has it occurred to you that perhaps it is misinformed to say there is a contradiction?

Anyway, as starter of the thread, you cannot just make a bald post as you have done so far, you would need to do the following:

Set out (a few of) the statements/teachings of Jesus and Paul that "contradict" each other and let us examine them.

@Febup

Please note that "pastor" Joagbaje is himself a "tithes" collector and he uses this medium to try and keep his sheeple under control; so don't be surprised if he twists the Bible and makes all sorts of somersault to defend the tithing scam.

Oh, the evangelical atheists are still here whining!

OK, here again one more time:

Breeze5000:
. . . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes, Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. [/b]Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and [b]I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . . .

unphilaz:
hmm! thanks enigma, no wonder i see why quite a lot of Christians that understands (by the grace of Yahweh) the emptiness of atheism no longer waste their time debating with them (atheist) because they are leaning on straw man reasons/views of atheism.

But overall, may Yahshua's love and peace be upon all that believe and may their (atheist) eyes be opened to see the fallacies of their belief called atheism.

One guy had their measure (especially of the evangelical atheists) in the post below

Breeze5000:
. . . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes,  Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. [/b]Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and [b]I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . . .

@ unphilaz

Here is one video --- this one not really a "debate" as such but of attempts to get Flew to clarify his deism following his renunciation of atheism.

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53REH5etIxU[/flash]

Pastor AIO:
. . . . You keep going on about me 'dodging' some question. I'm not you. please you need to bear that in mind. Nairaland is full of threads that you {edit: i.e. Joagbaje} didn't just dodge, you completely picked your two legs and fled from, like satan after being rebuked by Jesus.

Joagbaje even runs away from threads that he starts! An example: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-689808.0.html

An interesting thing about that thread is that after only a handful of posts, aletheia predicted that Joagbaje was going to "shy away"; and that is exactly what he did --- except he was even so shameless to laugh off his "shying away"!

Well, good riddance to the parade of intellectually dishonest evangelical atheists; they are like bullies and, as is the case with bullies sometimes, when you stand up to them they soon prove themselves to be much weaker than they portray after all. The case of the evangelical atheists is particularly pathetic; they have certain stock arguments, are usually obtuse (deliberately or indeliberately) and have certain dishonest methodologies that are easily recognisable by discerning people. In the final analysis, they are usually empty barrels. How do they say in some western parts of America? "They are all hat and no cattle". Well, let's use a description from nearer home in Nigeria:

Breeze5000:
. . . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes,  Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. [/b]Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and [b]I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . . .

Ah, the putative teacher shows up but asks his prospective student to run because he had failed here just like the teacher himself had failed miserably on the other thread. The blind leading the blind. All good.

^^^ Unfortunately, Joagbaje makes you do that; he weaves in error and falsehood at so many points that you have to counter many things in one go/post sometimes; or, you have to explain many basic things to show up his error/falsehood! It is really sad.

^^^You always had nothing sensible to say and now you are running away because you know that you are about to be exposed.

Your question asked in an arrogant manner has a very simple answer as you should know (but maybe you are really ignorant) with the answer coming from the mouth of Flew himself in a range of sources. In fact, even one of your fellow evangelical atheists, unprompted, tried to answer your very question on another thread, albeit his attempt was inadequate as to be expected. You can turn to him to be your teacher; I won't be.

However, when the dust of this thread has settled down I might actually one day open a separate thread dealing with Anthony Flews' "beliefs" including his god.

^^^ One interesting series of debates is that involving Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (and sometimes others) which partly contributed ultimately to Antony Flew renouncing atheism. Antony Flew (in vogue on Nairaland at the moment) had for a long time been a champion for atheists; till date many evangelical atheists in particular still parrot Flew's arguments even though Flew himself later accepted the superiority of the arguments for the existence of God.

thehomer:
Still showing your problem with  English comprehension of an English Wikipedia article. Read that article. It is to show that you are the one to answer the question that shows your contradiction.

What Wikipedia article is that then for goodness' sake? Well, I won't be surprised if Wikipedia is the beginning and end of your knowledge on a given subject; in fact it seems to show in how uninformed you are. 

thehomer:
My my. You've forgotten so soon the claim you made? Follow this link to where you made the claim.

Set out the claim --- or you dare not for fear of being shown up? If you can set out any claim and which you allege to be false, prove it false --- unless again you are afraid of being shown up! 

thehomer:
Of course they do. They show clearly your fallacies.

Self-deceit is bad for your well being, mate! 

thehomer:
Here again, you refer me to the post of yours in which you claimed I asked you for more than identifying Flew's God. I'm not asking for a teacher, but simply using the Socratic method to show you that you have made a false claim. Here's a suggestion, why don't you read the article I linked to in my last post?

Socratic method kọ, Zico method ni! Or is it Platonic, maybe Aristotelian? Bottom line you are suffering from foot and mouth disease; you put your foot in your mouth with your falsehood and now you don't know how to get it out. It can be honourable to withdraw false claims, you know. Anyway, I suppose it is not even right to associate honour with you. 

thehomer:
This is indeed laughable. You're unable to even count the number of sentences in your own paragraph. If you're making such basic mistakes, I guess I shouldn't expect much from you.
You're starting to bore me like you did before. Oh well I guess I should have expected such from one of your ilk.

Yeah, my bad (hurried edit); you score oh! So I redraft:

And you dare talk about "context" when you are unable to discern the usage of a word in context in a single extremely short paragraph!

thehomer:
I'm not asking you to teach, I'm simply asking you a single question whose answer will show your false statements. The question is simply "which God did Anthony Flew believe in"? This is why you've been trying to duck and dodge. Note that it is a single question. This is a well known and popular tactic called the Socratic method (simply follow the link). Your evasions only show that your statements are false and you've noticed this thereby causing you to try to obfuscate the issue.

Show us that you are not ignorant or duplicitous; provide the answer to your own question and then prove that I made a false statement. If you were a decent student paying enough attention, you would have noticed that that was essentially my first response to you (as far back as post # 37). 

thehomer:
Wow. You really are a case study of fallacies. I asked you a single question, you kept evading rather than doing what an honest person would do which is to provide the answer. Note that you made a claim to knowledge and I was only trying to find out if you could back up that claim.

Now you are showing yourself to be the liar that you are; set out the "claim to knowledge" that I made ---- or accept the appellation liar.

thehomer:
You finally ended your post by quote mining my post. You took my quote out of context thereby distorting the implication. That is a tactic done by dishonest people and ignorant people. That too is known as the fallacy of quoting out of context.

Your words speak for themselves, mate! 

thehomer:
When my statement is placed in context as shown above, it becomes clear that I was only asking you about the God Anthony Flew believed in and not his other beliefs. So, I was only asking about a single belief of his which you claimed knowledge to and not his other beliefs which you seemed to think I asked for and I clarified that I wasn't asking about. Yet, you misunderstood what I said? Talk about failure of language comprehension.

Now here you confirm what I have been saying that you cannot be my student because of your poor comprehension. You'd better take my advice and ask one of your fellow evangelical atheists to be your teacher. Anyway, read the post of mine #66; in fact for once I'll simplify it for you since your comprehension is that poor.

Enigma:
^^^And you are still as duplicitous and dishonest as ever. If you want to know about the god that Antony Flew believed in, go and read up on it; how many things do you want me to teach you? First, it was basic comprehension, then about Antony Flew's beliefs -- what next?

And you dare talk about "context" when you are unable to discern the usage of a word in context in a single extremely short (edit: i.e. one sentence) paragraph!

Meanwhile, here is a sample of why, as a result of your poor comprehension and/or dishonesty, you cannot be a student of mine and I refuse to be your teacher.

Your original question:

thehomer:
Which God did Anthony Flew believe in?

In a different form:

thehomer:
I wasn't aware that he believed in any particular God. Your post seemed to indicate otherwise. So which God was it? . . . .

And again:

thehomer:
Assume I'm ignorant, why don't you simply point out the God he believed in?

And you are not ashamed to say (or lie bold-faced) that you were not asking me about his "beliefs"?

thehomer:
. . . . Note that I never asked about his beliefs just about his God.

In fact there is no need for me to assume that you are ignorant as you requested earlier; you have by yourself confirmed your ignorance, poor comprehension as well as, for that matter, duplicity abundantly. You simply cannot be a student of mine, so I will continue to refuse to teach you that which you want to learn. 

^^^ Whether it is Antony Flew's "beliefs" or his god or the god he believed or even his belief in god (whichever is simple enough for you to understand) that you want to learn about, I refuse to be your teacher. With the poor comprehension that you have displayed you will make a poor student (of mine) anyway; I suppose that is one of the reasons why you refuse to perform the simple task of going to read up on the subject. You may turn to one of your fellow evangelical atheists; perhaps they'd be willing to accept you as a student?

^^^And you are still as duplicitous and dishonest as ever. If you want to know about the god that Antony Flew believed in, go and read up on it; how many things do you want me to teach you? First, it was basic comprehension, then about Antony Flew's beliefs -- what next?

^If you are ignorant, then go and read a bit about the issue and get yourself informed.

^^^The teaching of Jesus is that which you have said does not apply to Christians; you said it is not "New Testament" and "Jesus did not function in the New Testament" so why are you asking about the teaching of Jesus when it is useless for you?

You can "see your life outside" here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-704762.128.html#msg8695653
and here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-704762.128.html#msg8695815 among several others.

It is very simple: those who obey the teachings of Christ are those who will exhibit the life of Christ and show that even here the Kingdom of God is with them and in them ----- but if you say we are not to obey God or Christ, how can you be in him and how can you really have the life of Christ in you? Bear in mind that I am aware that you are going to spin the "new creature" line ----- the "new creature" thing is not all about the peculiar gnostic spin you want to put on it; it is also about discipleship, followership; obedience to the teachings of Christ ----- these, as enabled by the Spirit, will mark a person out as a new creature, better "new creation". (Edit)

lastpage:
@Enigma:
Thanks for your comment.
You used the words "being", "substance", "material", "stuff", to describe the relationship between Christ and "God" (the father).

What about the "third leg" of the arrangement? The "Holy Spirit"? How would you relate the three together?
My own explanation was from a "Redeem point of view" 'cos l asked the Pastor of my own parish about the issue! You know at the end of every service, we say the "benediction": In the name of the father, the son and the Holy ghost, bla-bla-bla,.,.,.

Personally, l am convinced about the "Unity of purpose" of the three. What purpose? That God's sovereignty is declared amongst men.
I also believe that, judging from the way Christ talks about "God, his Father", he most uses a "second person" phraseology (Dont touch me cos l have not yet ascended to my Father, 'l and my father are one, e.t.c), l think these shows that "he was not talking to and neither referring to himself!

Again, Jesus Promised to "send the Holy spirit" to his Disciples, after he gets to heaven, to comfort them and strengthen them, in his absence.
How is it possible to read this to mean that "He was going and would them "send himself" back to them?'

Does it not imply that even though they are of the same "substance", of the "same material" (as in their holiness), of the "same stuff" in terms of spirituality, BUT they are of different "physical presence"?
Thats the only rational explanation l can give to it and still make sense of what Jesus said in so many related and relevant places in the Bible.

What do you think?


Cheers,
lastpage

In addition to "being" and "substance", another technical word is essence.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same being, the same substance and the same essence.

Now, my understanding of your post quoted is that it does not detract from the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine acknowledges that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons; it is possible to use the word "different" but that can be misleading and "distinct" is more accurate.

So the Trinity doctrine says you have three distinct persons in one and the same God --- hence, we say three in one and one in three. Of course Jesus made references to the Father and to the Holy Ghost ----- and this accords to what I have just said about the distinct personalities of each of the three even in the unity of their oneness. A tree and its branch and roots are one and the same yet "distinct".

You can also see this old post from here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.32.html#msg6775459

Note the use of "both separable and inseparable". Cheers. 

Psalm 33:6

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

Just as God's "word" and His "breath" are both separable and inseparable from God so are Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit both separable and inseparable from God the Father.

^^^ By not knowing the god that Antony Flew believed in, you confirm your ignorance contrary to what you try to portray. If you know and you are just pretending, then you confirm your duplicity and dishonesty,

Your choice. 

^So basically you haven't got anything sensible tosay. Truth is I didn't expect anything better from you.

yommyuk:
Jesus said the gates of Hell will not be able to prevail against the Body of Christ. Satan is not going to win this battle, but he's at work by trying to undermine the truth of the Gospel in the churches all over the world.

How do you detect false teachers?

IDENTIFY THEM BY THEIR MESSAGE.

Deception
. . . Some teachers speak what people want to hear rather than calling people to live according to God's Will. They claim the Grace of God abounds. This saying is partly true, but must be discouraged.

I agree with this though I won't use "must be discouraged"; I would say "must not be abused". I understand though why you use that language --- especially if you are familiar with the posts of the Chris Embassy people here who seem to be some of the biggest abusers of the passage.

yommyuk:
Denial of the truth . . . .

These false teachers downgrade Christ when they preach. They speak more about worldly gains. Encourage people to focus more on worldly things, and less on heavenly things. But one thing is for sure; our living on earth is temporal, while Heaven is our eternal Home. It is up to you, the believer to choose which Home you are willing to invest more into. But remember, what is the point of gaining the world and losing your soul.

Any Man of God who directly or indirectly encourages his followers to focus more on worldly gains is a false teacher. He is denying people the truth.

A worrying trend that is evident in the so called church today,

Maybe it's just my way of seeing things but it seems that, while this post has application for all of us, the Spirit is using you to warn the Chris Embassy people in particular!

They are the ones who say Jesus' words and teachings are not applicable because "Jesus did not function in the New Testament"; they are the ones who see Jesus, in His time on earth, as just a man; they are the ones who elevate themselves to the same or even higher status as/than Jesus. They are the ones (along with other prosperity "gospel" people) who focus on material things especially money money money and deceive people by saying that in order to prosper a person must give and give and give to the pastor; a person must "sow into the life" of the pastor.

yommyuk:
2 Peter 2:2
Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers the way of the truth will be slandered.

They start living a life beyond their followers’ wildest dreams. I call it the spirit of "entrapment”, "setup", "sting" and "snare".

"Come live the good life" they say. Then what happens?

2 Peter 2:3
"In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money,   

Brethren, wake up and smell the morning coffee.

If only indeed they would wake up; instead they see these things as a sign of God's "blessing" on the m-industry, erm erm, "ministry".


I think I should just leave the rest for now, jare!

Lastpage

Well done and many thanks for this informative thread; to be honest, my attitude to the JWs is similar to yours by and large (though this may come as a surprise)  ---- there is then the issue of false (or at least wrong) prophecies concerning the ending of the world.

However I want to take issue with one thing from your posts. You said:

lastpage:
. . . . What does Trinity mean? It means that Jesus is the same “physical entity” as God (Jehovah) and it is also the same “physical entity” as The Holy Spirit. 3-in-1, as we usually say!

That is not a very accurate representation of the Trinity doctrine and can be misleading.

The Trinity doctrine is that Jesus Christ is of one "being" with the Father; or of one "substance" with the Father. In layman's terms, Jesus is of the same "material" as the Father; or Jesus is of the same "stuff" as the Father. This is represented in the technical expression - consubstantiality; see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality.


Knowing you from time past here, I am confident you will appreciate the subtle but very important difference.

If we simply say that Jesus is the same "physical entity" as the Father without qualification ------ then we will NOT have a/The Trinity; in fact, we will be heading in the same direction as the "Jesus Only" people.

Cheers.

The late Anthony Flew, one of the atheists' champions of all time who later renounced atheism, was asked:

HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic
revelation?

He replied:

FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On
the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s
comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the
possibility that it is revelation.

thehomer:
As usual, when you make blind assertions and are called on them, you try to dance around and obfuscate issues. My advice to you is that you learn to clearly say what you mean in order to avoid appearing ignorant or deceptive.
I'm asking what you think not what someone else thinks.

Again you show yourself to be of poor comprehension or very deceitful; point to the assertion that I made; point to the calling on them that I have failed to defend.

thehomer:
Again, you have failed to show that you even understand what you were saying. This appears to be a common problem with your posts.

That you keep getting so near to zero for comprehension makes me lean towards the conclusion that you are just deceitful and intellectually dishonest.


Fact of the matter is Flew renounced atheism, converted to deism/theism. However, the real problem of you and your fellow evangelical atheists is that the arguments that you parrot here, usually being Flew's arguments, Flew later accepted that many of them are superseded by the intellectual case and evidence for Intelligent Design; in fact he referred to some of his works as "obsolete". So you see part of the problem that you and  other neophyte or sciolist evangelical atheists have is that you lot know that, for the discerning, your arguments are unimpressive --- so you try resorting to underhand and intellectually dishonest methods.