₦airaland Forum

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
In as much as i believe you have a better understanding of the point i am driving than you express since we have been through this topic before on the other thread i would for the benefit of other readers of this thread explain again what is meant my the laws(written) being reapealed or cancelled or amended or summarised or obsolete or irrelevant. It is quite glaring that Pilgrim.1 loves playing around with words even when she knows what you are driving at hence the reason i posted all words expressing the law is no longer in force as it was in biblical times. Even though i have previously posted several biblical scriptures to establish this Pilgrim.1 still pretends either not to have read them or not to understand what they mean hence she is still pulling at the straws of the law being reapealed(as if the laws are still in force today). To summarise what all thess scriptures were saying about the law which were strict lettered words i would state the following: The law had a purpose which was to bring the children of Israel closer to God in righteousness. The purpose of the law was [b]fufilled with the death of christ as a living sacrifice and all we need to be closer to God is to accept Jesus and his commandments to be closer to God.[/b] The law was then summarised into loving God and our Neighbours. In other words for us to fufill the law love should be our guiding principle and we should do good to others. In essence what is done away with is the letters of the law, the spirit of the law is meant to be fufilled. I hope i have made myself clear now and pilgrim.1 would stop looking for loopholes in my statement just for the sole purpose of attacking my submissions

Good morning. I have not been looking for loopholes, and please save your religious sanctimony - it is become too boring to be endured. If you want to discuss, I am available; if not, save your the gimmicks.

What is wrong with you, KunleOshob? You have been throwing words carelessly and I endured it for a while. Anything in the past that I tried to share with opposers of tithes was unreasonable to you guys, and even though I called for calm and reason it didn't make any sense. That was why I refrained from posting anything but started asking questions. If you cannot answer them, what is this sanctimony now of always seeking to make up the garboil of alleging semantics as if that is a better alternative to cower under for the vacancy of thought in your arguments?

If it would help you, here: the one reason why I took up this issue of the "613 mosaic laws repealed by Christ's death" is because -

(a) you have been using that fallacy every single time to argue endlessly against tithes; whereas you had no clue that the people who claimed a "613 mosaic law" did not even agree or know what they were talking about! So how could you be using another person's confusion as you veritable bastion for what you cannot and have not been able to defend?

(b) those who have been opposing tithes have been using that same false claim of "613 Mosaic Laws" to argue constantly against this subject - and whether here or outside Nairaland, everytime I asked them to carefully delineate the 613 Laws of Moses and choose out how many were "cancelled", they get upset and NEVER oblige my simple request. Why? Because they probably found out too late that they have been talking hot breeze that have no bearing on the ground!

Now, you may or may not have noticed that the NLT that you quoted was a waste of space. I was ready to just post you an article written by somebody else about how dubious the NLT is, but I would spare that. My reason for focusing on the words you have used is that you may not realise how confusing you are making things for yourself. I mean, have words no meaning any longer to us Christians that we should be so careless in our assertions? If we can afford to be this careless and so stubborn to even check again, then it is not surprising to me why unbels will laugh and ridicule believers for the pitiful drivel we sometimes display in public! Where has our God-given intelligence gone?

Let me show you and all who care to see - the words you are carelessly bantering about are not the same thing in meaning; so please stop cheating yourself about this super-spirituality you have been waving in our faces. Here:

You said the "613 mosaic laws" were REPEALED by Christ's death, not so? And I was wondering how that could be when it is a FACT that Christians are still obeying most of those 613 Mosaic Laws - for which I quoted Romans 3:31. It does not come as a surprise to me that you would confuse issues further by the following highlighted words in your reply, as if to REPEAL is the same thing as -

- amended, or

- summarised

Are those 613 Mosaic Laws "AMENDED" or repealed?

Are those 613 Mosaic Laws "SUMMARISED" or "cancelled"?

Even the NLT you quoted does not say that they have been repealed or cancelled or amended or summarised or obsolete or irrelevant. I believe that when people are speaking "truth", they should not confuse their audience and appeal to more confusion. If I was sitting and listening to you, would I not wonder since when English speakers made "repealed" equal to "AMEND"? The NLT even argues on Romans 3:31 that you cannot forget the Law! For those who have been bantering this fallacy about the "613 Mosaic laws", it has happened again in just this instance that you could not show what you meant - as so many others in various places who have been making the same assertion!


KunleOshob, I have no worries with anyone. But it is sad that everytime people say that they are led by the Spirit (as if others are not) and they make these false assertions of 613 mosaic laws as repealed and "irrelevant", they have never for once been able to defend their assertions. Bless the day that they can show us where God ever told them such a thing, and yet they would still quote us the NLT that says you cannot forget the same Law that they repealed!

In one summary, Kunle, stop making this false statement. Realise that wherever you borrowed such sentiments, those who claimed it do not have a clue what they are saying. If you still want to keep forcing this false statement and not be able to defend it (not even the NLT defends it), then I leave it for you to be happy with. It just confirms one more case of how much people are willing to use fallacies to argue spiritual sanctimony as I have seen in so many other places. If I was the one confusing "repeal" for "amend", I know how many people would have pulled me up! Thank you and God bless.

@TV01,

My challenge with a plea is this: if tithe opposers actually have anything of real substance to share, they can do so without being pejorative towards anyone. Truth was never given to us as believers to attack and justify our accusations against anyone - but when would "Christians" learn to truly love others with true humility and share truth (even if their own fancy of "truth" without seeking to be pejorative and contemptuous towards those who don't agree with them? I have been there, done it - but one thing with me is that (God help me) I don't ever have the desire to justify such an attitude in my faith. I am not ashamed to own up where I have been wrong, and that is why I can freely apologise to those who point out my wrong.

If you may permit me just this few lines more. My attitude these days is to not push myself - for which reason I may not be posting arguments one way or another as much as I used to. I can be thankful that God blessed me with very mature believers as friends from so many denominations, and in true challenging love I have learnt so much from them. One of them challenged me to refrain from arguing so much about Islam and rather show them love regardless of their attitude. Such a challenge, but my heeding that advice has helped so many others far more than I could ever have accomplished by debating some more.

Same with Catholics - infact, as if God was watching over me (sure He has always been faithful), He sent a friend my way and from that moment I have learnt to respect even Catholics. Most of the scholars that Protestants cannot deny are Catholics - G.K. Chesterton, Alvin Plantinga, etc. We are grateful to people like them, and I have since learnt that we know far so little in the things of God that we should be cautious of making assertive statements in pretentious sanctimony. I don't know all about tithes, God knows. I don't see where God condemned or repealed them (if those words are given their proper meanings). People may not agree with me in my submissions - I have always maintained that it is not in my place to castigate or clobber them. Truth is not popular, but those who tithe can testify of the reality of God's power in their lives. Others may not give ecause they feel they are always being manipulated to do so. I only have come to be converted to the truth about tithing that I previously derided. God would not come down from heaven to argue with us - if we rubbish what He never commissioned us to condemn or ridicule in anyway, we show the condition of our hearts before Him and before men.

May God help us to be truly humble, loving and understanding. How true it is that God uses those we consider as foolish to humble our spirits before Him. It is not the loud mouths claiming "and I of Christ" that He is seeking - rather, He may endure our long and boring arguments and sanctimonies and yet bless those who truly understand the meaning of giving tithes without justifying it on the Mosaic Law.

God bless you richly.

Hallo TV01,

That God does not dwell in temples made with hands is not breaking news as if it happened yesterday - Acts 17:24 and ancillary verses are not new to us. However, the real gist of my concern is this:

TV01:
How many times did the Lord have encounters with satan? But think of the amount of time He spent railing against the hypocrisy and abuse of the religious establishment. Those are the one's to watch out for. There the one's that'll fool you with their hyper-religiousity and fake piety.

There you have it - and on many accounts, while we think to justify our accusations and finger pointing at "others", the fact is that we are often the ones most guilty of this kind of sanctimony. I qualify this with a "we", because I've been there before - and that is why I often these days try to caution our brethren to be more loving, understanding and share their views without seeking to be constantly perjorative against anyone. Like I asked earlier: "what justfies accusations against anybody - whether generalised or personalised?" It so happens that when we make assertions that we cannot defend and they are pointed out, we get so offended that reason completely exits and a stubborn sanctimony takes center stage!

Did you realise that while it is easy to "spot" those who say that they are of Paul, of Cephas or Apollos. . there was (and is) a sanctimonious group who deride others by saying "and I am of Christ"? See 1 Corinthians 1:12. When we study who these latter groups are and how they behave, you just come off shaking your head in pity - for they assume that they have so much of what other Christians never have. It is to that sort of sanctimony that the apostle addresses this remark: "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's" (2 Cor. 10:7). It is easy to see others as the modern Pharisees, but how many times do those who accuse others realise their own sanctimony is no better than those they perjoratively "spot out"?

Back to this issue - tithes. While some may say they have no beef with anyone, it is difficult to see the grace they hope to display. What saddens me besides whatever arguments people hold on either side are these: (a) many people opposing tithes constantly make untenable assertions that they cannot defend; (b) they never take time to consider that their assertions might be wrong when shown from Scripture; (c) they keep making such false assertions and get upset when pointed out; (d) they start off on wrong premises and use that false platform to attack tithers; (e) they make generalised statements which they borrowed from loud talkers who have no clue what they are saying; (f) and when they cannot show answers to simple questions, they then turn to the enquirers and resume their ad hominems!

It seems to me that every time you listen to an opposer of tithes argue, these are the very elements you will find every single time in their submissions. Even when you invite them to a reasonable discussion minus the slurs at anyone, they find it too difficult a challenge to speak what truth they suppose they have without being perjorative. They think themselves so super-spiritual and "free" from the bondage they allege against others, that they cannot for a moment realise how steeped in their own untenable world they have become! Now, TV01, please don't get me wrong - these matters here are not merely about posters here on Nairaland - I've spoken with and debated so many tithe-opposers outside this forum. The result? It is always the very same attitude I find in them. Whether tithes or any other subject, people make assertions that they cannot defend while castigating their brethren.

Hi Image123,

Lol, if you postpone it till next month, so many of us will miss out. Wel, we can be selfish, so you should do what is required. Do have a wonderful interlude, and when you resume we shall all the more be glad. Blessings.

[center][img]http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:Uk9CURFGZUhlEM:http://www.pjlighthouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/happy-thanksgiving-pjlighthouse-00.jpg[/img]

https://www.pjlighthouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/happy-thanksgiving-pjlighthouse-00.jpg[/center]

@ugborikoko,

What I had expected was that you would consider that very verse you offered carefully again and invite a discussion. Initially, it seemed you were seeking a philosophical dimension to your enquiry, which I could offer you (incidentally, I was not the first to have thought so). However, because the one problem with people reading any text is a matter of interpretation, I offered that you should carefully re-read that verse that you had based your ideas on, and see what it stated. At least, I was not pushing my ideas, but asking a dialogue. If you had already made up your mind that I didn't want to answer, what was the point sharing anything further?

However, if you are willing, I could then go on and share my thoughts. If otherwise, no worries. But here is something for your attention:

ugborikoko:
I maybe i interpreted wrongly. .

If you disagree that the soul of the animal does not die, then you must explain were this soul goes to.

Look again at the verse you quoted initially: what do you make out of this statement - "Behold, all souls are mine" (Ezek. 18:4)? You used that as applicable to animals as well, right? I only called your attention to re-check or re-consider it; let me understand what you had in mind, and then I can offer you some more substance. If that is not going to happen, no wahala. Blessings all the same.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
Pilgrim1
You Lol why all the evasion. . . . lol, if you don't know the answer just go ahead and say so. . . .

If you have an answer, please share.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Galatians 5:4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.
Galatians 5:14 For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[a]

Galatians 5: 18 But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.

I would address the issue of romans 3:31 in my next post.

How does that answer the simple question about your meaning of the word "repealed" that you used? Repeating the same thing and throwing words carelessly about is not the same thing as making yourself any clearer. Which meaning did you intend - "make better" or "cancel"?

KunleOshob:
In response to your over flogged assertions on Romans 3:31 i would post the preceding verses here for everybody to read. Reading a verse in isolation can be very misleading, dangerous and subject to misinterpretation. I would then leave others to draw whatever conclusions they deem fit on this issue of law.
. . .

Well what conclusions do we draw??

Mr, rather than use these verses by dancing around a simple question, what have you said about your often repeated "613 mosaic laws" being repealed? I already have said I don't want to risk misreading you, that was why I waited for you to clear your cacophony between "cancel" and "amended". Which is it?

KunleOshob:
31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

Haba, oga Kunle, haba! You who hope to highlight the "misleading, dangerous and subject to misinterpretation" you see in others should be careful what you drive yourself to say. The New Living Translation you used only managed to mislead you further. Consider this:

    (a) "if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not!"

Even the NLT is not saying the same thing that you have been asserting forever about REPEALING the Law. If repealing the Law means to "cancel" it, why does the NLT admit that you cannot forget about the Law? This is why I have appealed to you to consider the meaning of the word "repeal" that you keep flogging about.

   (b) "In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law."

Did the people of the OT not have faith at all? And if they did have faith, did they also fulfill the Law? Did all those who were men of faith under the OT (some of them as found in Hebrews 11) also fulfill the law by having faith?

The whole point here is that the NLT has applied its own ideas into that verse and not what it says at all - and you can confirm this by comparing with other translations. I may be wrong, ^{(bearing in mind I'm aware of Romans 8:4)} but if you feel that the NLT is correct, please compare with other translations to show us where that verse is saying that we "fulfill" the law - the same law which you said were numbered about 613 and repealed! Does "repeal" and "fulfill" mean the same thing to you, Kunle? Could I offer to quote the (b) part of that verse from a few translations? Here:

    NIV      - "Rather, we uphold the law"

    KJV      - "yea, we establish the law"

    NASB   - "On the contrary, we establish the Law"

    AMP     - "On the contrary, we confirm and establish and uphold the Law"

    ESV     - "On the contrary, we uphold the law"

Please Kunle, go back and check again. Even if one were to read this verse in all those translations and versions, are they saying the same thing you have initially been repeating every time about the 613 mosaic laws being "repealed" by Christ's death? How does "repeal" mean the same thing as your "fulfill" of the NLT? or, how does "repeal" mean the same thing as to "uphold, confirm, establish" the Law?

Kunle, please for clarity: how does your argument of "repeal" mean the same thing as to "uphold, confirm, establish" the Law? If you "cancelled" the Law by "repealing" it, how can you then argue that you uphold or establish what you cancelled?

KunleOshob:
Pilgim.1 hadly ever answers any question on this forum, she would rather run around in circles grasping at straws instead of addressing the real issues raised.

Don't take it personal. You may champion the cause of those who are too driven with false assertions and get pissed off when they are pointed out, but it does not mean you have to be preoccupied with more false statements.

@ugborikoko,

ugborikoko:
Dear Pilgrim,

Fine, interpretations cloud the truths of christianity. I maybe i interpreted wrongly. But the question has still not been answered. Even if you say the animal that sinneth would die, does that indicate that the soul of that animal dies. If you disagree that the soul of the animal does not die, then you must explain were this soul goes to.

I did not say that the animal that sinneth; rather, I asked you to carefully reconsider what inferences you were drawing by interpreting the "soul" in Ezekiel 18:4 and then applying it to the animal.

ugborikoko:
You still have not answered the question my dear Pilgrim!

Ok, i`ll take silence to mean no idea!

You may take silence to mean what I did not indicate. If ever I was going to be silent, you would not find me in this thread. If you already have made up your mind about what I think, thank you - I can then save them as well.

@ugborikoko,

ugborikoko:
The issue is not necessarily philosophical. Its an issue that the bible must be able to answer. People have interpreted soul to be something that does not die. That's why this question appears difficult to answer.

That is precisely where the problem is - "interpretations". The statements written in any verse may be interpreted one way or the other; and it is in those interpretations (not the verses) that problems arise. Let me show you one example:

ugborikoko:
If we take what is written at Ezekiel 18:4 to be true, then it would mean that souls Die. If souls die then there is no question of what happens to the souls of animals when they die.

In my view, your interpretation of that verse may not help (and perhaps, that was one reason why I had wondered if you were being philosophical in the first place). From that verse, there are at least two things highlighted: "the soul that sinneth" and "it shall die". If we take this statement in the same way as you did and apply it to your assumptions, wouldn't it b fair that you also establish a basis for applying it to animals as well? The verse says the "soul that sinneth" - and you should also help us see the "animals that sinneth".

The thing is this, the word "soul" is used there in reference to the person himself/herself. This again is clear in other places where they are so used:

~~ Gen 17:14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised,
that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

~~ Gen 46:18
These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter,
and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls.

Perhaps you need to look again before drawing the inference you did earlier.

KunleOshob:
As i said before yu thrive on semantics wether the laws were repealed, summed up, ammended, cancel nullified or set aside the fact still remains that christianity is not based on those laws and the demands of those laws are not made on christians except the one of tithes (in a modified) version to fufill filthy lucre desires of those that preach it contrary to the spirit of christian giving taught by Christ and the apostles.

Learn to discuss and drop this childish game of "semantics". When you use them, I never accused you perjoratively.

Okay, I hear. By repeal, I should take it that you mean (among others) -

     -  ammended

     -  cancel

     -  nullified?

Sorry, I don't see how "repeal" is the same as "amended". This is how -

         repeal - "the act of abrogating; an official or legal cancellation"

         amended - "modified for the better"

So which one is it - have the 613 laws been "modified for the better" or "cancelled"? I don't want to risk misreading you, so please don't be careless in what you say and then come back accusing me of semantics.

KunleOshob:
@Pligrim.1
How many of the 613 mosaic laws do yu observe?? I need a clear answer on that before i can respond to any other question you raise on that topic.

@KunleOshob,
Do you really want to know my answer? Here: pilgrim.1 never said the Law amounted to 613! That is the whole point! I have said so many times that people who make that assertion should go back and CHECK before launching any other idea from that fausse patte.

Now, if you believe in a specific 613 Mosaic law, are you at all aware that is just an abitrary figure chosen for convenience? Not even the Jewish scholars quoting that figure are agreed what constitutes the precise body of "613 laws" - they all hold different opinions and make up different listings. This is why my reason for asking that people should go back and check is so that they do not make themselves the unncessary victims of other people's arguments. If you're happy to hold unto the idea of "613 laws" and then argue that they were "repealed", good for you. It is either you mean what you say or you would only use it in the case of tithes but be happy to soft-pedal in other issues. This is a matter of being consistent: if the number of laws that were "repealed" were 613 in your view, please list them and let's see if indeed all the 613 were repealed as you are happy to keep asserting.

Meanwhile, if you want to know my take on the Law in the new covenant, a good place to start is Romans 3:31 which I recommended. Many Christians never take the time to carefully see the import of that statement, and that is why any time someone brings up the issue they get pissed off! I didn't explain Romans 3:31, I didn't pen those words - if they are in the Bible, let those who are often asserting the 613 laws as "repealed" do us the honour of considering that verse as well! It is unhealthy to see only some verses and be selective while ignoring others! Since it has become the culture that anything I try to offer is dismissed out of hand, I have only now been asking questions. Since our "lovable" brethren can accuse others and justify them, no worries - they can "love" us by answering these questions as well.

KunleOshob:
I believe galatians 5:14 squarely answers your postulations.

Galatians 5:14:
14 For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[a]

I'm grateful, thank you. First, they are not my postulations - I didn't postulate anything other than call your attention to your own postulations about a "613 mosaic law" being "repealed" by Christ's death.

The reason why I'm glad you quoted Galatians 5:14 is because I would ask us and others who discuss this issue to practise what we preach. If we are going to "love" our neighbour, what is the sense in slurring them because their own take on tithes is different from what we hold?

KunleOshob:
More of what the bible as to say about the law and christianity

KunleOshob:
I believe galatians 5:14 squarely answers your postulations.

What are the "613 mosaic laws"? Are they repealed or not?
If they are, why are you being selective?
What does Romans 3:31 tell you, KunleOshob? What do you mean by "repealed"?

KunleOshob:
For the benefit of those who maybe confused concerning Pilgrim.1 severally repeated statements on wether the Mosaic laws are relevant to christianity or not, i would post relevant scripture and allow you to judge. I had declined repeating this posts before but as the saying goes a lie repeated too often assumes a dimension of truth, hence i have to clearify things because it is now quite glaring to me that someone is deliberately trying to manipulate scripture.

The lie repeated about "613 mosaic law" being repealed by Christ's death assumes a dimension of truth, yes? Why don't you share on that instead of making all these pretences and screaming about pilgrim.1? Kunle, please be gentlemanly enough to go to those 613 Mosaic law and show us how you have repealed ALL those 613 Mosaic laws by Christ's death.

And as you do so hastily without a consideration for the appeal I have severally offered you, please spend some time looking at the same verse I have often offered for your consideration:

Romans 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law".

You can scream about pilgrim.1 as if I ever tried to piss you off; but as you do so, please have a heart reconsider your own assumptions instead of taking this personally. If all 613 Mosaic Laws have been repealed (your own asserted word), you have no business being selective.

@KunleOshob,

I don't want to drag any issues with you. If you are happier using unhealthy assertions to justify your arguments, please yourself. It does not necessarily mean you have been presenting the truth; and perhaps it may be more helpful to present your views and save the unjustified slobbers. If not, do as makes you happiest.

Shalom.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
I really don't feel like debating this issue with you anymore there is nothing more to say, we have been through several pages of this issue on another thread and i believe it was sufficiently thrashed out. I don't know why you keep bringing up semantics to win arguements when the facts are obvious.

It has become the often repeated song to appeal to semantics when you no longer wish to discuss a matter, that doesn't make it true. My discussions are not about winning an argument as much as you desire to keep on that road i it appeals best to you.

KunleOshob:
Why do you keep hammering on the mosaic laws i have shown you sufficient scriptures which establishes they are not meant for christians. that is not to say some parts of it might not be relevant or useful.

See what I mean by constant adjustments in your posts? Please stop confusing yourself and your readers by constantly asserting that 613 laws of Moses were REPEALED by Christ's death when you know you cannot defend! You will never be able to defend that fallacy, Kunle; so why do you keep using that as a false leg to condemn what God never asked you to condemn? It is because that campaign of opposing tithes has often been based on this fallacy that is why I often invite those using them to be go back and check out their untennable ideas before trying to pride themselves on this mistaken adventure of "telling truth" while assuming others have no clue. You can now adjust the "613" figure you constantly claim, or keep asserting it as such and then come back to complain when they are pointed out as untrue and unreasonable. If you are not sure of the so-called 613 laws, cease from pushing that idea - it is false, Kunle.

KunleOshob:
But to say we have to keep Mosaic laws would mean we should all be stoned to death since i am quite sure no christian observes the sabbath rule of not working (including the seventh day adventist). Please stop all this semantics it really pieces me off.

Get pissed off as much as you want, even though there's no reason in mine to make you so. I have constantly appealed to you to be careful what you say about the fallacy of this 613 laws you assert were repealed. Many people who have borrowed that fallacy have been using it to attack others on this issue of tithe; and when their attention is called, they get "pissed off"! How could non-tithers be using this false assertion to castigate others over this matter when they cannot defend it at any time? Every time (here on this forum or elsewhere) when this issue is discussed, I have tried to be reasonable - my wonder in it all is that those using them have never gone back to check, but they would rather get so deeply offended.

Let me help you out here (if you can take it anyways). Whoever broached the fallacy that "613 laws of Moses" were repealed by Christ's death only offered it because such a person had no clue what they were saying. It's not wise to be offended when asked to go back and check it out. Sadly, this fallacy is what non-tithers constantly appeal to when condemning tithes and tithers; and one should wonder why these fellows can justify their own mistaken assertions and use that fallacy to oppose tithes. The only thing they can do is go back and count the 613 laws again and come back and show us that they were ALL repealed - or make the necessary adjustments and not use the same fallacy to slur tithers. Don't get pissed off - be willing to check the simple truth about this matter instead of getting so upset!

KunleOshob:
if you don't have any substance, you don't have to post.

What substance is there in posting the same fallacy about 613 laws as having been repealed? Do you have to keep posting it every time on tithes when you know you can't defend it?

KunleOshob:
The issue being addressed on this thread is "the truth your pastor would not tell you about tithes" and not my opinions or yours. These truths were clearly stated in th opening post and backed with relevant scripture. So what exactly is your beef?

I have no beef with anyone. Truth be told as simply, people should not use their own fallacies to push the idea of telling "truth". It is from the same Scripture I have shown that idea to be a fallacy, so what is the reason for getting pissed off?

KunleOshob:
The issues raised should be addressed. issues like why don't pastors preach to me that i can eat and drink from my tithes as stated in the bible, issues which make it clear that biblical tithes is produce of the land and not money as pastors falsely preach, issues such as tithes(agricultural produce) for the levites which is every third year not weekly or monthly money/income tithes the characters preach. Instead of addressing these issues you go and cook up unrelated scripture and try and justify this crime against christians.

Sorry O, Kunle. I'm not worried about your accusations - if you invited a discussion, all the more I have ben glad to partake. Who cooked up the very thing about 613 laws being repealed for which I got really serious to call your attention to it? Who has been saying he would never respond to my posts again while I have been inviting a dialogue? It's way too easy for people to justify their accusations and yet preach about "love". Well done.

KunleOshob:
ps: I would also like to repeat clearly here that the Melchizedek does not have a place in christian doctrine. the fact that he was once compared to Jesus does not make him our christ. Neither were christians directed to observe the occurence of Abraham's one off tithes to him.

There's a difference between the priesthood of Melchizedek and Melchizedek himself. You mentioned "melchizedek priesthood" as having no place in Christianity, why drop the "priesthood" now and pretend it was all about Melchizedek alone?

@Pastor AIO,

Thank you again for the added context - that's what I enjoy in discussions, thanks.

Pastor AIO:
Ugborikoko, I think that your issue might hinge on the philosophical problem of Identity?

Well, I was wondering about that, which was why I have been reserved for the moment because it may not be in our best interest to mix philosophical ideologies with the content of the Christian faith. There are so many ways that people may answer his question, but I wondered about what he ws all about.

Anyways, ugborikoko, I shall give you my thoughts in due course.

Pastor AIO:
I agree with you. I also want to make a distinction between Eternal and Durable. Durable exists in, and persists through, Time. The Eternal has nothing to do with time but rather exists in Timelessness. So it might be possible to be Durable forever and yet not be Eternal. However to be Durable forever is not possible, I don't think. Because in the temporal existence we live in all things are subject to change. Or as Heraclitus would put it, Panta Rhei (Πάντα ῥεῖ ).

I appreciate your thoughts. Infact, I probably had anticipated you on the highlighted part, which was why I referenced 1 Cor. 15:53 & 54 earlier. How? Well, I'm of the understanding that the "durable" (that which might be in a state of mortality, perhaps?) could become "forever" - in the context that "mortality" would have put on "immortality". That's what I think, though.

KunleOshob:
I really don't know what you are about, you have already admitted on another thrad that tithing is not compulsary for christians "even though you tithe".

It is this type of unreasonable projections that makes me feel sorry for folks like you. If something is not compulsory, it does not mean it is condemned. Please let that simple fact sink into your soul. Marriage (as Analytical said sometime) is "NOT compulsory"; but would it not be actually unreasonable for anyone to start saying therefore that it is "condemned"? The problem is with attitudes - not once did God ever condemn it, but your won't ever want to see that simple fact!

KunleOshob:
I don't have a problem with that even though the basis with which you claim you tithe (melchizedek priesthood) is not relevant to christianity.

Did you type that in a hurry? Do you claim that the Melchizedek priesthood is not relevant to Christianity? This is even sadder from someone who prides himself with "telling truth". Make yourself clear and think less about the person you're discussing with.

KunleOshob:
We are both aware that most pastors preach tithing as compulsary and non-negotiable which you agree with me is wrong. Why then are you always eager to attack me and refrain me from telling people the truth about tithes.

Kunle, don't feel "attacked". I cannot sit mute and allow you to "attack" other people with your false assertions, for you have not been telling people the truth about tithes. What you have been doing is mix up vague misconceptions, spring from a false leg about 613 laws which you cannot defend, and then launch your own perjoration against others for your perceived "truth". Calling your attention to that very fact is not to be read as "attacking" you - that is why I have often invited you to look again into these matters. Would you ever want to even pay any attention? If it seems your forte to keep castigating others under the misconception of that false idea about 613 laws, what is my worry? We all know that those who keep schlepping this weak campaign have always done so on the mistaken idea that EVERY tither is coerced and mandated to part with their money! That is not like seeking to discuss, and I wonder why non-tithers have to keep repeating that very same thing EVERY time!

KunleOshob:
I have always said i don't have a problem with people giving, my problem is with the false doctrine being preached and the preachers spreading the false doctrines.

Oh, really? Are you really concerned with false doctrine? Here's a starter: it is false to keep asserting what you don't know about 613 laws being repealed. That is false, Kunle - be concerned about that as well if you're going to be honest!

KunleOshob:
All the truths about tithes as been examined and it is glaring it was never directed at christians that is except you want to be in denial.

I am not in denial but have always invited you guys to examine the issues. If you start off on a false leg about the Law, would it surprise anyone at all that you would spin off with wrong statements - even sometimes making assertions that you have to come back and keep adjusting?


Kunle, I'm not attacking you. . . rather, I invite all non-tithers with a simple challenge: refrain from using false assertions to attack anyone so that we can all discuss honestly, healthily, without sanctimonious pride, and for our own good. Is that too much to bear?

Shalom.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Well you can call it accusations but the fact remains that millions of christians are being deceived into parting with 10% of their income which is not required of them by the faith they profess.

I'm sorry dear sir, but you made the categorical statement that you indeed were making accusations [reminder: "Even when i make accusations,. . " your quote]. I just wanted you to be clear about the fact that you acknowledge your own accusations, which again was the point all along - that is it unfair for you to constantly make these assertive accusations in your obsession against tithes.

Talk about being deceived, I have shown you several times that what you may assume as the status quo in every single case is not actually so. There are many people who actually tithe without being coerced, mandated, cajoled, forced, manipulated, or compelled to do so in any way. I was one of those who strongly opposed tithes until I began to realise that God never once condemned it or set any Christian to legislate or assert the opposite on His behalf. Only when I opened my heart to Him and realised indeed that I possibly might have been wrong, did it occur to me that the attitude of tithe-opposers is unhealthy towards their brethren in tithe in simplicity.

I have often tried to reason with people on this subject, and the first thing I notice is the same thing I was once engaged in: the default position to accuse, slur and castigate others every single time in our misplaced pride that we are telling the "truth". I have since come to know that truth was never committed to us to use against others in such a manner - and that is why I often discourage such attitudes in this matter. It is not as if everybody must be converted to become tithers, for even if the Lord Jesus Christ were to come down Himself and state it as part of our Christian faith, many "Christians" will find reasons to still begrudge or resent this subject!

KunleOshob:
My dear sister as an informed christian i think you should be more interested in correcting this annormally rather than justifying it and covering up for these characters. Called a spade a spade, if a psator willfully deceves his congregation for material benefit and i call him/her a fraud i am certain i am in order.

If I were to call a spade a 'spade' and expose your misconceptions, would you be willing to endure the same? You see, Kunle, I have often stated that truth can be shared without being perjorative to anyone. Why is it that it is sooooooooo hard for tithe-opposers to be simple in sharing their persuasions without seeking to be perjorative towards anyone, whether in a generalised or personal way?

Anyway, if there are anomalies to correct, the first place to begin that correction was in my heart - it began with me, not others. I had to first get rid of the log in my own eyes and erode my prejudices before I could be in a better position to help others. "Help", I said, not slur or malign them. Please go back and see where I have been discussing tithes - with the exception of my response to anonimi once, my attitude has always been to discourage the slobbers against others and state our persuasions in a helpful manner. This is why I have often tried to reason with even you, going often back to Scripture rather than appeal to all sorts of misquotes here and there. I decided to let the matter be; except that any time I see this unhealthy attitude from non-tithers, such have often served as invitation to point out their anomalies.

An example? I have often repeated it every time you asserted it: the 613 laws of Moses that you asserted were repealed by Christ's death. It is sad that while you claim to be passionate about speaking truth, you have never taken the time to sit down and check out the fallacy of that assertion. Should we keep quiet every time you project that false statement while you feel at liberty to be perjorative at other people? Why, Kunle, . . why is it that we as "Christians" are ever so prone these days to defiant disregard for simple truth? If it were true that 613 laws of Moses were repealed by Christ's death, why do we still practise a whole host of them in the new covenant?!?

Would you really desire me to call your spade for what it is? It is very easy to point fingers at others. . but when the same things are pointed out to us, the immediate reaction is to consider them "insults". Kunle, when you make recommendations to other people, think of yourself constantly - it will help you discover the blessing of humility far more than a readiness to justify our own accusations for any reason. Which was why I asked the previous question directly.

Shalom.

Hi Pastor AIO,

That was helpful. Just a line to balance off issues:

"Immortality," of course, suggests infinite existence not only into the future but also throughout the past.

Maybe, maybe not. How? Among other things, it is not restricted to the sense above; for immortality does not always suggest "infinite existence" throughout the past. Some concepts or context of immortality include:

        ●  not liable or subject to death

        ●  not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting

In these contexts, perhaps we find a few pointers in Scripture where the term may not actually be pointing to the idea of "infinite existence throughout the past". Let's remind ourselves of a few:

        ●  1 Cor. 15:53 - "this mortal must put on immortality"

        ●  1 Cor. 15:54 - "this mortal shall have put on immortality"

Perhaps it would indicate that the one who puts on "immortality" was not having "infinite existence throughout the past". Rather, it would be pointing to the understanding that the one who puts on immortality is no longer subject to death.

I thought to point that out, because this idea of "infinite existence in the past" seems to be the basis of the confusion for some when they discuss "immortality".

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Even when i make accusations, the accusations are never personal, i don't direct it at anybody in particular i always try to generalize hence nobody can accuse me of insulting any body's person.

@KunleOshob,

What justifies your accusations at anybody - whether generalised or personalised?

ugborikoko:
@Pilgrim,

Please tell me what you think

I shall do so in due course.

KunleOshob:
I have decided to refrain from responding to your posts on this topic of tithes since you have chosen to be unreasonable and somehow obssesed about it. However i consider being called a lier very insultive as i pride myself in always speaking the truth no matter whose ox is gored. The fact that you don't agree with my posts(even though they are backed with scripture) does not give you the liberty to attack my person.

I'm glad for your sake that you noticed and should take care of your own tent before you pelt others. Let me apologise for being that forward, I did not mean to come off the way you took it.

However, how do you think others would feel when you keep being so accusative every single time you display your obsession about this subject of tithes? How is it that you cannot share your own perspective without asserting that what others are saying differently from yours are tantamount to "all sorts of lies"? After having appealed to you to refrain from such attitudes, you felt quite at liberty to display your "love" in Christianity by constantly priding yourself with this same attitude. Kunle, truth was never given to believers to castigate or slur others, especially when you keep making the same assertions constantly and yet have never had the grace to understand that you might actually be mistaken in so many instances. If you're going to truly love and help others, you give yourself the grace to share your perspectives simply and without assertive accusations. It does not bless you or those you accuse when someone uses your own language on you, even if they say the same thing about speaking the "truth" regardless of whether your own ox is gored.

Cheers.

ugborikoko:
The General belief is that souls don't die. Humans have souls, so do animals of all types. If it is true that souls don't die, and humans go to heaven or hell,

WHERE DO THE SOULS OF ANIMALS GO??


Who can answer my question?

Aiight. Good you changed the topic.

plappville:
How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25?

. . . On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country. In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.

Em. . is the above part of "How" Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25?

I thought there was already a thread with the very same topic?

Isaiah 57:15

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

@vicero,

How body? I trust all is going well with you and your family? Praise God. The thanks to Him, and appreciation to everyone - both those who were able to respond in some way or the other. God will richly bless everyone (even those who were able to only "donate" prayers). Be encouraged - that target will be reached miraculously.

Yes, the "truth" is there for all who have hearts to seek it in simplicity. This has become a much abused refrain these days, so that even those who are asserting their own biases can also backslap one another with party loyalties. If someone should point out how mistaken they are, it no longer becomes "truth" - their "truth". Truth, if we care at all, was not given to deride people who don't belong to our preferred denominations.

Hi again, TV01,

TV01:
And lest I forget, the tithe. A necessary but mostly fraudulent re-introduction by the same religionists – along with temples, mediatory MOG’s, set worship times and “programs” – to fund this delusion or madness, or evil; take your pick.

Without the mandatory tithe and other forms of coerced giving, the “church” – in the space we are talking about namely African/Nigerian/Black Pentacostal type would almost certainly never have got off the ground, or it would cease to exist in it’s current form.

But take the mandatory tithe away, coerced giving away and imagine the shape the church would take. Look no further than the book of Acts.
I’ll stop now, but like I said, happy to discuss further, but you don’t really need me. Seek the truth with all your heart.

Your dissilussionment is almost certainly not with Christ, it's with needless, empty religion.

A few observations. As I read through yours, I sadly shook my head with a solemn thought: when will Christian brethren learn to start loving without this sanctimonious apologetics? I don't mean to come across negatively; but why is it so hard for opposers of tithe to understand that a whole lot of Christians give tithes and offerings WITHOUT a sense of being coerced or feeling mandated to do so? And why dictate to others on how they ought to use their offerings - whether to build places of worship or for other missionary activities? Why is it so easy to be bothered about others who don't bother you, and yet keep repeating the very same thing about mandatory and coerced giving that have been retired ages ago as non-starters?

Grace, bro. . . grace. Enlarge your thinking beyond these complaints. Cheers.