₦airaland Forum

benega:
Without much ado just indicate by saying 'I have an issue' and by the grace of the creator I'll tell u the problem and the solution.

I have an issue.

neoapocalypse:
Sorry to derail this thread but I'd like to know the
title of a certain movie I say way back as a kid ,
It involved a kid who got transported to ancient
Egypt with the aid of a pyramid looking object , he
was wearing a baseball or American football
helmet ( can't remember which ). He met a little
princess who later got transported back to
present times. I can't remember the full story.

The movie is 'Tut and Turtle'. The egyptian prince was Tut (Tutuankhamun) and the boy was surnamed Turtle.

Vanellope:
You might want to try Yahoo Answers for that one.

The movie is 'Tut and Turtle'. The Egyptian boy king is Tut (Tutuankhamun) and the boy's surname is Turtle. Hope that helps. Loved the movie too.

toneyb:
It has a lot to do with our ability of not being able to think for ourselves. Black people hardly ever think for themselves(That is why we are never inventors only followers), We are NEVER encouraged to ask questions or challange constituted authorities(follow and never ask questions). We are raised to swallow everything and take it as it is being presented to us without asking why it is so or how it came about. I am mixed race, my mum is white but my dad was a yoruba man. When I first got to Australia I was very supprised at the way the white people here bring up their kids and always encourage them to think for themselves and have a mind of their own in almost every aspect of life including religion.

That is completely absent in Africa. You just have to take what is thrown at you without questioning it. And one other thing is that we are too fearful. Fear is what drives the black man in almost everything that he does, that is why we so much believe in things that have no meaning and do not contribute in any way to our societies, things like witches, demons, wizards. (These things mostly exists only in Africa much more than other places)

If you read the bible and see things that do not make sense to you like the Noah's flood where it says that the water rose 15 cubits at its highest and ask your sunday school teacher in a place like Nigeria to explain to you why the bible says the water rose 15 cubits at its peak when there are so many mountains that measure up to 100 cubits in the world, you might recieve a slap and be told that who are you a man to question god or the word of god. If you ask why there are so many contradictions in the bible you might be lucky if you go away without a slap. If you visit the koranic schools in Nigeria, Children and thought to memorize the koran with a whip, if any of them dares to ask why he should pray in arabic and not his native language, he will be lucky if he doesn't have scars on his back from the horsewhip of the koranic teacher. So we are left with nothing but fear, unnecessary fear that has been instilled in us since childhood to guide our lives.

This fear is what controls us and how we live our lives our lives. The fear of the unknown, we are too fearful, we can't question any form of constituted authority be it our parents, teachers, rulers and religious leaders. The black man does not really believe in freedom and individual thought we all like thinking and living as a community. Individual thoughts are not usually welcomed at all, that is why you see adult men and women living with their parents and having their parents, members of their families or communities thinking and deciding for them.

This inability to sit and critically evaluate things and circumstances is the reason why we are always following while other races have advanced and are moving forward while we are stagnant and unable to move forward where ever we seem to find our selves as a people. Another reason is poverty and ignorance, poor people who are always in need help are more likely to believe in god(as a source or means of lively hood or provider) than a rich person who has almost everything available to him.

@ Tonyb,
                   you have summed it up nicely! Fear oils the wheels of religion : 'if you don't accept God as your Lord and obey Him, He will cast you into hellfire or the lake that burns forever with sulphur and brimstone.' Who wont be afraid of this deity and serve Him so as to avoid the so-called punishment?

  And when one asks about some pertinent issues in religion, you get silly answers like : (1) that's the way God wants it  (2) the Lord works in mysterious ways (3) the holy spirit will reveal it to you in due course (4) don't question God . Some people even go to the extent of trying to cast out demons from the one who asked the questions   .  

   Revealing one's uncatholic views on religion to one's friends and family is a big task and leads to ostracization in one form or the other. I recently lost a close friend because I told her that the Bible wasn't infallible   .

Ajokeakin,
                  your post reminded me of a quarrel I had with God at one time. I accused Him of favouritism just like you did: why did He refuse Cain's sacrifice? why did He favour Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, men over women, the Children of Israel over the rest of the world i.e. the Gentiles, whilst we are to accept that He created everyone ? I never got an answer from Him, the Bible didn't help either (maybe it's because His favourite people were the ones who wrote the Bible). I very much doubt the account of the writers , but that's a different kettle of fish for another day.

 In contrast, Jesus in Matt 5:45 said ', He makes the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, He sends rain on the just and the unjust, '  meaning that God spreads His blessings to everyone in this world, and not to a chosen few, or whether you are on His side or not. While we have these words in mind, let us also remember that not all fingers are equal. We all don't have the same abilities and talents, and may not be successful in all our endeavours.

  Life has a way of creating a balance in things. A little less here, a little more here, asymmetry etc. We all can't be equally blessed with the same talents or abilities.

It's not likely Jesus had long hair because it wasn't the culture of the male Jews to keep long hair. Exceptions were noted in the Bible ie Absalom and Samson. whose hairs were long and were in locks/braids .If Jesus, had long hair, it would have been noted by the writers of the Gospels.

The pictures of Jesus are just artists' renditions of either themselves or a friend or a regular individual during their time. Or actors like Cavaziel or Robert Powell. Jesus, being someone from the Middle-East could not have had blond hair and blue eyes. Those pictures are false and grossly misleading.

1Cor 11:14 echoes the way in which men kept their hair at that time and is not an injunction for the men of today to keep their hair short/trimmed. It was a cultural thing for the men not to have long hair. Though Paul wrote that ', does not nature itself show that it is shameful for ment to have long hair, ?', he was infact stating what he perceived to be the norm/ natural thing but this was underpinned by the cultural mores of the society at that time. In the Far East, men kept (some still do) their hair long, and it was also perceived to be the norm or natural. Here, we have a case of different cultural practices in different societies. More like one man's meat is another man's poison. The Bible verse above should not be taken to mean that men/christian men should not keep their hair long because it would amount to a society imposing its own beliefs on the societies under the guise of religion. The world has moved on now, and men can do whatever suits their fancy ( I admire men with beautiful braids/cornrows or locks ).

I hope the child will understand the above explanation, but let the child know the truth and see diversity of culture and not think that religion is all in all that we do.

I hope this helps a little.

Jackdaniel,
I gbadun your post joo! The Yorubas should follow suit like the Igbos because Esu is not the Devil/Satan as depicted in the Bible or the Quran. He's like Ekwensu, a really naughty boi , not some malevolent deity.

Some of us who have left 9ja can go visit tourist places (gleefully toting our cameras) like the Temple of Artemis and other such places reminiscent of the Greek and Roman Empires (let's not forget that the Vatican is replete with similar Gods-cum-Saints) , admire their archicture , the history behind it blah, blah, blah, but will say a very loud 'Tufiakwa' 'Olorun maje' while snapping one's fingers and making a half-circle over one's head when invited to Sango's shrine or to Amadioha's obi to have lunch with him.

Is it because the foreign Gods sound 'Behind' and ours don't? We've demonised our own Gods and destroyed beautiful architecture, yet we venerate the foreign Gods and even pay to hear or see them.

What's this about 'releasing' God's power? Was it chained or put in a box and prayer and fasting are the keys to opening that box? Does that not undermine His omnipotence? 'Releasing' God's power conjures the image of a Magician who has to say some incantations before he does his magical acts in my mind.

Poster,please explain what you mean here.

Ilelobola,
I found your post really interesting. A similar thing was said in my church (population of 99% Africans,1% English) too. Before Obama was elected, my pastor 'insinuated' that Tony Blair could play a role as the Antichrist because of his position in the UN and the fact that he was now a Catholic. When my pastor made that statement, I wondered what he was getting at. The only conclusion I made from there was that he succeeded in putting fear into people's hearts.

As Christians, I think we should care less about whether A or B is the Antichrist. If we go back to the book of Revelation, christians would have been raptured when the Antichrist manifests,so why bother about him since we wont be meeting him? We should instead be occupied as Jesus admonished us by loving our neighbours, spreading the news about God's love for mankind, living truthful and honest lives etc.

I've always found something wrong with the African 'brand' of christianity and this is one of such. Instead of our pastors to admonish us to be better citizens of our country,they are busy instilling fear in us and lining their pockets.

Pilgrim,
I got the hole thingy in Hakan's story from the part where he said he had to crawl under the sink and didnt realise that whatever he was looking for was further back than he thought.
My queries aren't skewed,the evidence before us does not add up. The view we were presented showing the 2 Hakans isnt a view that was taken by one of them. A third party took the video. No need to repeat why I think so. Let's think of the year this phenomenon happened : were the pix/videos taken by camera phones as good as the one in this video ? Was it really taken by a camera fone? What year was this video taken? I wont dwell much on the skin appearance of the older Hakan,cos the vid isnt focused on it.It doesn't show an older man's skin ( I agree that there are some cases where 70yr olds may look 45 yrs, but the fact still remains that as we age, we lose elasticity in our skin). The way ur skin was when u were 10 years old is different from the way it is now.This loss of elasticity makes tatoos stretch. The length of the tatoos in both Hakans are the same but it shd be longer in the older Hakan. Besides, it shd be lighter in the older Hakan to tally with the passage of time (but it isnt).

The 'demon dog' could have had been placed on sth to appear at the man's shoulder, but then, does it really matter? If a trick's going to be played , it will be played. I'm not trying to force the story to read in a particular way, but he could have shown us pix of other guests at the party who took their own pix at the same spot at about the same time. He could have 4gotten that there was a dog present at the party,then remembered later, and decided to stick to the story of a dog being absent at the party . Can we believe their words on their claim that a dog was absent at the party? Could it be that all the people in the vid are actors? Could it also be that we saw a 'demon dog' in the vid because we wanted to see such ie we see what our eyes want to see?
Conjectures would have to come up when evidence seems to be lacking. I will wait for u to get more evidence on the veracity of these videos

About the demon dog in the fotograph, there are some missing parts to that story. First, is the Hernandez dude (the guy in question)and his wifey really telling us the truth that there was no dog present at the party and whch appeared in the photo? If there was a dog at the party, that would tally with what the experts in such phenomena said about the grain of the dog being the same with that of the rest of the picture.
Hernandez claimed that others who took pix at the same spot did not see a dog in their own photograph,yet, he did not provide us with pictures of these other people who took fotos at the same spot to verify. All we have is his word. Even if these other people claim the same thing ,can they be trusted? Where are their own fotos (it will be important to note the time they were taken too)?
Lastly,since Hernandez was on drugs at the time he took the fotos,could there have been a memory lapse: wherein there was a dog present at the party but he had forgotten about it?
I dont have all the answers to such stuff, but his story is fodder for a skeptic.

Pilgrim,
u misuderstood me on my take on Hakan's video. The hole I was referring to isnt a blackhole/wurm hole thing. I have also come across the theories of time-travel and blackholes etc. What I'm disputing is the evidence brought forth by Hakan. I was referring to the hole he had to pass thru to repair his leaky sink/pipes. In that if he had to make a hole in the wall where the sink is attached to, he wouldnt fit into it at all.Same with a hole he might have made in the floor below the sink.

Let's say he's got a very good fone camera to take his video (to obliterate all forms of shakiness and instability), it still doesnt explain the long distance btw his body and the fone ( he would have to be either an orang-utan, a chimp or Mr.Fantastic to do this). The left upper limb which isnt shown in the video, which we are supposed to assume is holdng the fone,definitely seems to be much longer than the right upper limb. Did u look closely at the left shoulder joint? It was stable, and this isnt expected if he was holding the fone in that upper limb and moving it from up (showing the faces) to down (showing the tatooed arms). Besides, did u notice that we didnt get a good view of 70year old Hakan's face whereas it was the opposite for the younger Hakan? Dont u think that was deliberate? Was the face a younger one which is incongruent with a 70 year old's?
What do u think about the tatoos? Why is it darker in the 70yr old Hakan? It should be less prominent/ darker in him and longer too because with age, the skin loses its elasticity, and tatoos should appear longer.The skin doesnt show signs of being wrinkled either.
I still think it's a hoax.

@ Pilgrim,

I forgot to add something concerning the Time Traveler. Is he like Mr.Fantastic of the Fantastic Four where he can stretch his limb, in this case his left upper limb, so as to take a vid of himself and his future self? Ironically, the right upper limb remains normal. The distance from which the vid was taken is too far from the body to accommodate the length of his limb . It just shows that it was a third party doing the filming and it smells of a hoax. I wonder how much Hakan was paid to do that.

He didn't say much about his plumbing , but let's look at it this way. Was the hole in the wall or in the floor? If it was in the wall, he couldn't have entered the hole 'cos there was a little distance (which will accommodate only small animals like rats, roaches and lizards) between the inside of the wall and its outside judging by the window above the sink. Such walls are not built to accommodate the length of a human body, but for a human hand to make repairs like the plumbing stuff he was doing.

If the whole was in the floor, I would expect him to have a torch to light his way, then he shouldn't have said in the video ', and there was a light, ' implying that there was no form of light originally until this llight of the future came. But really, would he have been able to lower himself into the hole? The space under the sink looked too small to accommodate a man,besides, he wouldnt fit into it with all the tubes and pipes criss-crossing underneath the sink.
So which hole did Hakan get into?

@ Pigrim,
I've checked out the time travel story by Hakan N. Reminded me of the movie ' Frequency' . Well, Hakan isn't a time-lord like Dr.Who ( I prefer the series that had Tom Baker in it) but he's a mighty-fine liar. I leave the theories of time travel to the physicists, but the evidence which Hakan has brought to us is fishy.
He said he took the video of his 70year old self and his present self on his mobile fone but that vid was taken by a third party. If you are taking a vid of urself with or without a friend, u wont get such a wide view as we saw in the video ( look at the sun's reflection, the angle in which the vid was taken, the video was not jerky or shaky,the recording was too smooth to be done by the same person, the 70 year old Hakan was not very clear in the vid for us to see signs of aging properly etc). The view we saw was a larger one which is got from a third party being present (abi, it was his 100yr old self taking the vid just kiddin').
The cameraman was being a wee clever by not showing us the full extent of Hakan's left upper limb.If he truly was taking the vid by himself, the left upper limb should have been raised and lowered intermittently to get the right pix and this will be seen as movements at the shoulder joint. This video shows the shoulder joint to be 'stable', it wasnt moving as expected normally
The tatoo is another suspicious thing here. I couldn't zoom into it and have a better view even after pausing the video. What I noticed however was that the tatoo was a little darker in the 70yr old Hakan. Or was I seeing stuff? With age and time, the tatoo should be less dark. Symmetry of the tatoo was difficult to compare, but it could have been the same if done by the same aritst
The hand of 70year old Hakan was too smooth for me, I wanted to see signs of aging like prominent veins, wrinkled loose skin etc, but I was disappointed.
I think it's a hoax anyway,

@ Pilgrim,
I have been reading the posts in this thread and I must say that I've quite enjoyed them. It's a wonderful breather form doctrinal issues etc .
I saw the videos of the 'ghost' with the 2 girls and the accident caused by a dead girl and I had my doubts on them. I posted them here but I think the NL website had a problem at that time, so my posts didn't show up (it was showing me 'gateway 502' or sth of dat nature).
Let me repost my thoughts on them now :

1. The girl who caused the accident is a bit funny for the following reasons : the girl's faacial expressions were incongruent with her experience of having being involved in a fatal accident. She seemed a litle detached when she got into the car and was asked questions by her helpers. She showed animation when they arrived at the death spot. Why the disparity??

Secondly, why would any1 focus a video cam on some1 in distress? In reality, if my firends and I pick up some1 in distress, we would not put our video cam in her face. We would rather put it down, and attend to her. The way the video footage was done showed that some1 was filming deliberately ie to show a performance. In other words, they were all actors.
I will watch the video again and look for more flaws in it

2. In the video which showed a ghost coming behind 2 ladies, here's my take on it :

The video never showed us the whole room in one sweep, it showed us in parts, hence some1 could come into the room and not be picked up by the video.
The room also seemed to be one dat had corridors or partitions in it where some1 could hide. The partitions aren't solid wall made of stone, brick,mortar etc, but of something with less density.
The 'ghost' was definitely crouching before rising, but where was 'it' before the girls turned round the corner? Was 'it' at the otherside of the partition where the girls turned into? Hence, they met at the same place?
Could it have been a trick with lights where there was a projector fooling our eyes too?

I really dont know, I may have to put on my thinking caps and look at those videos again. In this age of 'thoughts flying' and 'iron not sinking in water' anything is possible. I prefer to look at the science/tricks first before I put up my hands and say 'It's beyond d natural'.
Any insights on the videos from you?

Pilgrim,
the day is far spent and I'm really tired. Before I go to bed,a few words from me. The Levitical tithes is part of the Mosaic Law,which is more than the Decalogue i.e. 10 commandments because it comprised of 613 laws. My mistake calling it a 'law of tithes'. I meant the commandments on the different forms of tithes in the Law.This is an interesting development from you in defining terms as exactly as they were meant to be. It's just that you didn't show such exactness in the definition of 'tithes' .

Of course Judaism did not originate from Abraham, I never hinted it at all. I also never hinted that Gentiles are under the Law. All I was trying to say was that if God thought Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was worthy of emulation, He could have brought it to the knowledge of Moses for him to encourage the children of Israel to emulate.

Are you saying that Gal 3:17 talks on the tithe of Abraham before the Law came years after and that the Law cannot annul this covenant? If you are, in that case, you are making a humongous mistake. The covenant under discussion was the promise that God made to Abraham that his seed ( Jesus) would inherit the promise and the blessing. And it is through Jesus that we Gentiles and Jews i.e. spiritual offspring , who have faith in Jesus receive this promise. Inheritance of this promise is done through FAITH.
The Law claims that by it's observance people would be saved i.e. salvation is of the Law. From here, Paul contrasts the two i.e. faith and the Law, saying that the Law which came in 430 years after the promise of God cannot disannul God's promise to Abraham where salvation is by faith and unconditional, not by works of the law which was based on its obedience. The covenant of the promise is superior to the Law. God who had promised to Abraham would keep His promise and bring it to pass and has done so through Jesus. This verse did not even border on tithes. I encourage you to read the whole chapter so as to get the whole picture here.

Non-tithers are not condemning tithers. This is a free world so we all are entitled to our decisions. What we non-tithers are saying is that the bible is replete with examples to show us that we christians are not obligated to tithe. If any1 tithes, it is because they either do not understand that tithing is unscriptural for christians or that they have decided to make a personal decision to tithe . Such decisions should be as they are- PERSONAL DECISONS and not God's injunctions for us christians.

Ehen, before I forget, when will u come up with a demystification of the 'mysteries of the new covenant'? Till then, I've got to get my beauty sleep now. Borrowing the words of Elechi Amadi, 'may the day break' .

Hallo Pilgrim,
hope u had a fruitful day . I'm sorry I will not share with you how I go about my giving.That is between God and I.Whether it is daily,weekly,fortnightly or even monthly, only God and I are entitled to that information. The proportion in which I give is also not for public consumption( I shouldn't have told you on how much I have given before, but u prompted me to). As a non-tither, God has blessed me 'repete'tiously in all forms and I'm happy to be used as a conduit by Him to bless others.
In Lev 27:30-31, that was the way they redeemed their tithes. Those verses also tell us that God never used money as tithes and He placed an interest i.e. increased monetary value on those who wanted to redeem it;so if any man wanted to do so,he paid an interest on the value of his tithe.Probably, you are confusing it with the way 'redeem your tithe' is used in church.They are quite wrong here because redeeming one's tithe means buying it back which the passage has illustrated for us.
Are you trying to tell me that Melchizedek was not both a priest and a king i.e. he had a dual office and that Abraham knew this? The reason why Abraham tithed to Melchizedek is the same reason why Eleazer could have inherited Abraham's property if he hadn't had a child, which is the same reason why we don't have any injunction in the bible telling us to celebrate the birth of Jesus, which is also the same reason why Jesus was using the example of pouring new wine into old or new wine skins. What I'm saying here is that the reasons for all of them are found in extra-biblical sources and it is for us to search them out if we want to understand why such things were so. The Jewish historians ertainly left out some important information.
In one of your posts to TV 01, you actually confused me. You were asking him where God did away with tithing ,yet you had posted to me earlier on a biblical reference on obedience of the Law not bound on christians since Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. Are you trying to say that you don't know that the law of tithes is part of the Mosaic Law? I remember that your stand on tithe is based on Melchizedek, but tithing as it is being noised about usually get its foothold on the Levitical priesthood.Even when Jews talk of tithes,they expound the requirements of the Law but give the Abrahamic tithe a cursory glance and when christians want to validate it they refer to Abraham and Jacob which have no bearing on the Levitical tithing. The tithe of Abraham as I had earlier said was not even used as a point of reference by God for the children of Isreal to tithe.

Whether u base your tithe on Melchizedek, Abraham, Jacob or even Jesus, it is your personal thing and not one which is expected of us in the new covenant. Nobody is begrudging you if you tithe, at least I can vouch for myself, it is your personal thingy. What is important to us as christians is that tithing has no basis in this new covenant .

Pilgrim,
you obviously didn't get the fact that I was making a mockery when I talked of the first fruit offering, atonement offering etc. If I was for all of such,why would I have asked you to explain Acts 15? I was trying to let u know that the same way 'God did not condemn tithing (cos u want to know where God condemned tithing outrightly like 'Thou shall no longer tithe in this new covenant') is the same way He didn't condemn all the other parts of the Law'.Understand here that I'm making an ironical statement.

You know the grace that I was referring to because you mentioned it to TV01 here :

c) Post-Mosaic ushers us to the present where the grace of God in Christ Jesus is offered to all the world - Jews and Gentiles.

When I give what I have to others (money,time,material possessions), I don't call it any special name like 'offering/tithe/love offering' etc. I don't even see the need to.I'm content to be used by God as a vessel to meet someone's needs. When I give money for God's work,the percentage of it with respect to my income is between myself and God. And by experience, I've given my 100%,so I know what I'm saying here when I talk of 100%. I've also made a commitment to God never to make wealth a prime thing in my life , my priority in this life is to know Him more and love Him more. In a nutshell, the new covenant giving is not confined to percentages or done in obedience to a law/out of compulsion.
Abraham's tithing to Mel has nothing to do with God's injunction and was carried out as a normal practice of the times ( tithing and circumcision predated Abraham and were not exclusive to the children of Isreal). He did that to Mel because of his dual office-a king and a priest,more on the priesthood office) and not to the king of Sodom. If God had seen that Abraham's tithing (one-off and booty possessions) was worthy of emulation,He would have used it as a term of reference when instructing Moses on the issue of tithes.
How was faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen) involved in Abraham's tithing?

You are still being nebulous about the 'mystery of the new covenant'. Could you pin it down to something concrete?

Lev 27:30-31: I gave u an illustrated example on the word 'tithe' because it has only one meaning i.e. specificity of terms without ambiguity.When tithes are being redeemed, the person adds 20% of the value of the tithe to the original value of the tithe and hands over the money to the priest and takes his tithe( crop or livestock) back home with him.

Pilgrim,

you base your tithing on the Abraham-Melchizedek relationship,right? There really isnt any big deal,so to say on Abraham's tithe because,tithing was an already recognised practice during his time adopted by the nations then (whether pagan or not); Abraham was only following the customs and practices of the people when he tithed (let us remember here that it was war booty,not personal possessions) to Melchizedek because he had to pass through Mel's land and Mel was a king (likened to the Yoruba proverb which says one shouldn't pass through the land without saying hello to the oba-with gifts); the tithing was not prompted by a divine injunction from the Lord and faith was not involved in this tithing.

The new covenant giving has no boundaries,whether it is 100% or 1%,it should be done with a willing and cheerful heart not out of obeying a law.The old covenant giving/tithing was done in accordance/obedience to the Law and by compulsion.

Since your tithing is not based on the levitical priesthood or the jewish rites , then dont make it seem as if your tithing has a basis in the new covenant because it doesn't.

You mentioned 'mystery of the new covenant'. Has the mystery been revealed, or is it still hidden? Do expantiate please.

You are right here- God didn't condemn tithing, He also didnt condemn my firstfruit offering, my atonement offering, my not eating unclean animals, my not going for a church service in my menstrual period, my not planting two types of seed on a single plot of land and a host of others. Then why did Jesus come in the first place if we are to go on with all these practices Are we to tell Him that His Son came in vain?

All those references you brought for 'grace' have no bearing with the grace of Christ that I was referring to. The grace of Christ brings us into liberty which is what the Law had failed to do.

I agree that dictionaries and encyclopediae should not replace the bible, but how can u understand the bible which was written in another language without these? The English dictionary has defined 'TITHE' as a tenth part. It did not change the meaning of the word in the original Hebrew or Aramaic,it just conveyed the meaning to us English-speakers. When someone redeems his tithes and adds a fifth part to it (notice that 'a fifth part' did not have a special name like a tenth part which is 'tithe') it is no longer called a 'tithe'. The priest who accepts this ' redeemed tithe' knows what percentage it is exactly and the man who makes this offering does not just call it as 'tithe' , he qualifies the offering he is making so that he priest knows it is no longer ten percent ( the man says to the priest 'here is a fifth part which I have added to my tithe according to the Law of Moses').

In my church and a few I've been to, when food and clothes are being given in recognition of a need, it is called 'love offering'.

@ Pilgrim 1,

Acts 15:1-29 talks about the issue of the Mosaic Law being brought into the new covenant. The proponents of the Law wanted circumscion and obedience to the Law of Moses to be part of the new covenant especially on the Gentiles ( you and I). This was the first ecumenical council,and Peter dealt with the issue. He recognised that even they themselves, the Jews ,could not keep the Law,also that God's love had extended to the Gentiles and He didn't require us to keep the Law. Everything under the Mosaic Law has been nailed to the cross. If we decide on our own to tithe, we should then decide to obey other parts of the Law like (a) not going into the congregation of the children of God while in one's period (b) not eating seafood without scales (c) not wearing clothing of mixed materials (d) all the daily ,sin and all-what-nought offerings should continue amongst a host of others. Why keep a part of the Law and not the rest?

The word 'TITHE' has a catholic meaning and it is 'a tenth'. Any variance to this definition is a personal opinion and should be labelled as such. If one pays 11% it is no longer called 'tithe' and it should be clearly stated as 11%.
Since u pay tithes (though u said not necessarily 10%), Pilgrim , it would be nice if you said that you do so based on your Personal Opinions not under the new covenant of Jesus because this new covenant that we are under does not obligate us to do so. Law and grace do not go hand-in-hand. What we have now is giving from a cheerful heart , not out of compulsion. Whatever is being given does not necessarily have to be money, it can be time,clothes food etc, but tithes was specifically agricultural products. No variance in meaning.

Pilgrim,
thanx dear.I've been having a gr8 time this evening. Why were you bothered about the phrase 'serpentine meandering'? It was as if I touched a nerve there but I don't recall refering to a particular person. I said 'some posts' which includes those for and against tithes . You also took my itemised points personally. Funny,they were not addressed to you in particular. They were my conclusions from all the posts.

You may not do a verse-by-verse exegesis. You also may not go through the whole chapter,just restrict urself to the first 29 verses and let me know what you think about them. Take note of the highlighted parts.
What disturbs us non-tithers (and Huxley if I may add) about tithing in the church is that it is non-scriptural for us christians, it has been used to put 'fear' into us (Mal 3:10) and it isn't even practiced the way it was meant to be if truly christians have to tithe.
Let's go back to Acts 15: 1-29.

~Lady~:
Absolutely.

Mary is even more blessed as a disciple of Christ than she is as his mother. She too kept to the commandments of God and she too did the will of God. When she heard the word of God, she did not go against it. Unfortunately people think that the passage was Jesus dissing Mary when infact he was only blessing her the more.
If the passage was in anyway dissing Mary then there would be a contradiction in the Bible when Elizabeth called her blessed, when the angel called her full of grace, and when Mary said she will be called blessed by all generations.

So that passage includes Mary in it. The question to ask oneself is "Did Mary hear the word of God and keep it?" if the answer is yes, did Christ not bless her the more?

Well to me he did. This passage blessed Mary even more.

Lady,
that short passage was not meant to diss Mary. Jesus would never have done that, He being strictly brought up under the Jewish Law.
What Jesus was telling the old woman was that focus or veneration or undue adulation was not meant for His mother. The focus of God's children should be on God alone and it is those who obey God that are blessed. Jesus didn't bless Mary more abeg o (whip out the scriptural references for saying that He blessed her more). Look at that passage again dear, it says ', YEA, RATHER, '
If that woman had had her way i.e. in form of religious-political power, she may have deified Mary at a much earlier time. I find it funny that Jesus being the owner of the mama never gave instructions to deifiy, venerate, 'honour' as you Catholics want to be politically correct, nor did He do any of such or even tell Mary to bless / pray for christians on His behalf , yet mere mortals like you and I who were never connected with her ,can pass a law for her veneration, adulation and 'honour'.

I've been following this thread and I've noticed that :

(a) definitions have been altered from their original intentions e.g. tithes of all the land = agricultural produce, but has a new meaning in modern times which is MONEY

(b) the context and purpose of tithes which were clearly stated in the Law is not what it is today as practiced in the church

(c) we christians have not been studying our bibles well and prefer to hear from the pulpit (some of the people on the pulpit are either ignorant or mischievious )

(d) we christians do not know where Judaism ends and where Christianity begins

(e) some of us christians are not students of history,hence do not see the need to research the origins of things and understand why some things were put in the bible

(f) some of us christians are afraid that if they don't tithe, they will not be blessed (some even equate blessings with money),hence they need to 'feed' God every Sunday or whatever day the tithe bag/tray/envelope is passed around so that He won't be mad at them and withdraw His blessings


While I was going through all the posts and enjoying the 'serpentine meandering' (to borrow some1's phrase here in describing such wuru-wuru to the point) of some posts, I noticed that the question of tithes or no-tithing had been addressed before the writer of Hebrews (Paul or maybe me). The issue had been addressed while the church was being 'set up'.

Pilgrim, this is for you. Could you please enlighten us on the book of Acts Chapter 15? Here it is :



The World English Bible
previous pagemenunext page
Acts: Chapter 15

1. Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can't be saved."

2. Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.

3. They, being sent on their way by the assembly, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles. They caused great joy to all the brothers. {The word for "brothers" here and where the context allows may also be correctly translated "brothers and sisters" or "siblings."}

4. When they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all things that God had done with them.

5. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."

6. The apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter.

7. When there had been much discussion, Peter rose up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that a good while ago God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the nations should hear the word of the Good News, and believe.

8. God, who knows the heart, testified about them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just like he did to us.

9. He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

10. Now therefore why do you tempt God, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11. But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, {TR adds "Christ"} just as they are."

12. All the multitude kept silence, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul reporting what signs and wonders God had done among the nations through them.

13. After they were silent, James answered, "Brothers, listen to me.

14. Simeon has reported how God first visited the nations, to take out of them a people for his name.

15. This agrees with the words of the prophets. As it is written,

16. 'After these things I will return. I will again build the tent of David, which has fallen. I will again build its ruins. I will set it up,

17. That the rest of men may seek after the Lord; All the Gentiles who are called by my name, Says the Lord, who does all these things. {Amos 9:11-12}

18. All his works are known to God from eternity.'

19. "Therefore my judgment is that we don't trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God,

20. but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

21. For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

22. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brothers. {The word for "brothers" here and where the context allows may also be correctly translated "brothers and sisters" or "siblings."}

23. They wrote these things by their hand: "The apostles, the elders, and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings.

24. Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law,' to whom we gave no commandment;

25. it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26. men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves will also tell you the same things by word of mouth.

28. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things:

29. that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell."

30. So, when they were sent off, they came to Antioch. Having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.

31. When they had read it, they rejoiced over the encouragement.

32. Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged the brothers with many words, and strengthened them.

33. After they had spent some time there, they were sent back with greetings from the brothers to the apostles.

34. {Some manuscripts add: But it seemed good to Silas to stay there.}

35. But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

36. After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let's return now and visit our brothers in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, to see how they are doing."

37. Barnabas planned to take John, who was called Mark, with them also.

38. But Paul didn't think that it was a good idea to take with them someone who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and didn't go with them to do the work.

39. Then the contention grew so sharp that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away to Cyprus,

40. but Paul chose Silas, and went out, being commended by the brothers to the grace of God.

41. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the assemblies.

Lady,

I've been enjoying your replies. Nice. Could you enlighten me on these 2 verses in the book of Luke Chapter 11? Thanx.

27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Laceybric,
we are all entitled to our beliefs . From the description of your experience, that was postural hypotension. From the story of Lazarus, that was a MIRACLE. God's ways aren't our ways but everything strange thing that occurs cannot always be attributed to God/Holy Spirit/Anointing.

affee:
@ Malama
Agreed you came out with a 1st class in Medicine or whatever it is you read, but I don't think think that makes you knowledgable in the workings/ mode of operations of the Holy Spirit.

For heaven sake sister of all the things you could come up with why fainting?

Affee,
whatever I read in school and whatever grade I had isn't important. My post was to explain the 'falling under the annointing' of Laceybric. The fact that we see/hear/experience things which we have never experienced before does not always mean it is a supernatural event.
I 'came up' with fainting because that is what happenened to Laceybric from her post. Sorry,I don't fit into the mould of Xtians who see such 'unnatural events' and just say 'Glory,hallelujah etc'. The fact that such events may be beyond our understanding does not mean they are all spiritual experiences. Physical experiences occur and it takes those who understand it to enlighten those who do not.

laceybric:
Farotika its not only demon possessed peeps that fall under the anointin of d Holy spirit!!!

I was baptised in The Redeemed church.I started attendin the workers's meeting every Sunday before service. At the workers's meeting every sunday,Prayers are been said for the upcoming service of the day and for the week.

On two or 3 occasions, I have fallen under the anointin and no one laid a finger on me nor were even praying 4 me. I was standin prayin the prayer points been given, and suddenly I saw myself on the floor.It was like I had slid down d wall I was leanin on.I felt felt this warm sensation all over me. It was the holy spirit.

Another occasion when we were prayin on another sunday,I felt warm all over and weak kind of.I started swayin,and I knew that if i didnt sit down i would fall. Again,noone was praying for me nor laid a finger on me nor was even praying directly fo[b][/b][/i]r me but because I was in the presence of the Holy Spirit I fellt.

Another occasion again was in school.In my year 3, I was in a student cell meeting and after the discussion,we stood up,held hands and were praying when suddenly I saw my self on the bed(we were in d room,all girls). It was like I had fallen under the anointin.We had just ben prayin 4 ourselves,when I had started swayin(I knew I was swayin anyway but didnt know when i fell).No one touched me.

So,all I am saying is that falling under the anointin isnt a hoax nor hynopsis.

Yeah,sum pastors deliberately push you to fall.I hav had like 2xperiences when the pastors pushed me to fall and when i didnt continued pushin(tot he was an amateur). I didnt feel it den so didnt fall. It wasnt like I was hardening ma heart or anythin den.

Also even if a pastor lays his hnads on you and you don't fall,it doesnt mean that the Holyspirit didnt come on you nor touch you nor your prayers wernt answered. Infact ,dey mite hav been answered.

Its just that people like 2 see physical signs of a particular things. Wot dey don't understand is that,sum things rnt alwaz physical.They r sumtimes spiritual.

SO FALLING UNDER THE ANOINTING IS NO HOAX!!! JUST PRAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT MINISTERS TO YOU(THAT'S ALL).WHETHER YOU FALL OR NOT DOESNT MATTER AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laceybric,
I've read thru ur post twice and I've realised that what u described that hapened to you is very real and is not a unique experience. The experience or 'fallin under the anointing' you just described is called by the medical doctors POSTURAL HYPOTENSION.[i][/i]
In layman's language, it is called FAINTING[i]. It is because of ur position i.e. standing,in this case,u stood for some time, that your blood pressure fell and you fell to the floor.When you fall to the floor, you blood pressure returns to normal and then you awake.I've avoided going into details on the mechanisme of such but if you are very curious,as usual,google POSTURAL HYPOTENSION.
I've had this feeling too.When I was in a tutorial class some years ago,I suddenly felt light and there was this noise of rushing wind in my ears.My vision started to blurr.The tutorial teacher noticed I was swaying and immediately told me to sit down. After a while,I became okay.My tutorial teacher and I and the rest of the group knew what it was-POSTURAL HYPOTENSION. We had been standing for over an hour for the tutorial. The same thing occurs when soldiers fall during a parade especially when they have been standing for a prolonged period and listening or pretending to listen to some boring speeches being given by their ogas. It also occurs during the 3 weeks Orientation in NYSC camps and believe me- IT IS NOT THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT .
Too bad there was no medical personnel present when you 'fell under the anointing' because they would have verified what I just explained to you. Even if one had been present and told you all that it was a normal physical reaction and not a supernatural one, the Christian brethren present would have 'skabashed' and debunked his explanations. I've had my share of such things and have been 'skabashed' away while trying to explain why some things occur to people who are steeped in religion and have no knowledge of the normal workings of the human body.

rubi:
My prayer is I want to come to a level where I will give offering to God that hurts me

Very funny !!! If ur offering to God is one that will hurt you,don't u think that has negated the injunction to give from a cheerful heart? Besides, what do u want to give the One who owns the whole earth?

Poster,
the best time to pray alone is when u get to ur office,immediately tell ur colleagues u need some time to urself and then go hide urself somewhere in the office premises and pray for 2-3hrs.
Dont tell me u believe all these stuff like the best time to pray is 1am and all what nought.Pray at anytime that is convenient for you.God isn't limited by time,u know.He is ever ready to commune with His children. He neither sleeps nor slumbers,so u wont be waking Him up at 1am or whatever

olabowale:
@~Lady~:
So tell me, the muslims in America don't pay personal/individual income tax and or corprate tax, as appropriate? You must be kidding me? Fortunately you refer to the western countries as secular, but yet you are talking about their taxations as if they are Christian nations. However you slice it, just be consistent. Muslims do pay taxes, in all these countries.

Infact, Dubai World, a port management company is forced to reliquish its ownership to manage the US Ports, simply because its a muslim country or organization owned. Now explain that to me, if it is not a first class discrimination? Come to the real world. I know what I personally go through in my daily life, simply because i am a muslim.

Olabowale,
please could u throw more light on the similarity between Jizya (taxation on non-muslims who refuse to convert to Islam) and the taxation in the US/UK (which is levied on everyone who has earning power and does not look at religion/race/tribe etc) ?

Ayinba1,
I forgot to mention that in all the biblical verses that talked on different forms of violence either from God or from the children of Israel themselves (however,note that they are very different from the wars that Allah says muslims should wage) ,one common thing to all of them is that what was recorded was what they DID . In the case of the Qu'ranic verses,the violence is what the muslims should [b][/b]DO.

Ayinba1,
same old rehashed verses we get from you muslims. All those excerpts are in the Bible.The conquests of Joshua were political and religious (when God's laws were violated).The surrounding pagans were ordered to be killed because they would have influenced the children of Israel to follow their gods (ditto with Elijah killing the false prophets of Ba'al).

The man who offered his daughter to be raped (Judges19 :24) did that of his own accord,not from God.If u had read that chapter at all,u would have noticed that at that period,it was recorded that people did whatever they liked ! God did not say the man should do so.At thd of that chapter,we are being told that it was something that had never being done in Israel.
Ps 137:9 talks on the captivity of Israel by Babylon and the planned revenge of the Isrealites.Yeah,so what? All that was limited to time ie when they were captive and anticipated their release (they were captive thru their disobedience to God FYI).

I dont want to go thru all the examples u copied out. Can u bring out verses which expressly say that I should fight Midianites,Babylonites,children of Jericho etc because they dont serve God ? Did u ever note that God had always wanted peace for His people and before the occupation of the land,the pagans had to be done away with?
The saying of Jesus bringing war and not peace is not the kind of war where u wield 2-edged swords or scimitars. He was saying that His teaching will not be accepted by everyone in a household (which is very true in 9ja and other countries) and this will bring division.Not every1 agrees that Jesus is d way to God like u and I now though we are both Nigerians and that's why we are doing jaw-jaw on this forum .
The bible has never said that I should not take unbelievers as friends,or kill or smite their necks. I will get back to u l8er.