₦airaland Forum

olabowale:
Pilgrim has become a broken record. She repeats and yet, again, she repeats. Boriiiing. Pele Aburo mi.

You can insult me how many times you please, but I have just the same message for you:

My rejoinder was to nanayisha; and if you're the only ignorant muslim on the forum,
others have seen it several times, which would make it unnecessary to prove the point.

Wonder if there's any place for appreciate art in the Christian life? What do you think?

Here's one that I especially like:

[img]http://fineartamerica.com/watermark.html?id=157138[/img]

@naomijt,

Okay, dear sis. . . I didn't want to rush to post a reply to the points you had raised; that's why I had to take the time and go back to recheck my assumptions from the Word and see if they had any substance. Rather than assert anything, I would like to just point them out and ask what your thoughts are:

naomijt:
Your questions:

* does the spirit of man depart his body at death?

: The Bible does not say

Okay, perhaps you may want to have a look at a few statements which the Bible does make about this issue:

■   Gen. 35:18
     And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died)
     that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

■   Moses had died and been buried (Deut. 34:5-6)
                     but he appeared at the transfiguration without his body (Matt. 17:3)

■   1 Kings 17:21-22 - when Elijah prayed that the soul of the child
                     should "come into him again", it is clear that the body was there,
                     but the soul was not in the body

naomijt:
* is the spirit of man conscious after the death of the body?

[b]: No; there is no consciousness in death (Psa 115:17; Eccl 9:5)[/b]

Have you considered that the dead actually exist in a different sphere and are very conscious of their state in that realm? Indeed, in Eccl., the preacher was referring to things as appertains what happens "under the sun" (eg., Eccl. 9:3 - one event happen to all). But what does the same preacher say in that same book?

■   Eccl. 12:7 -
     Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
     and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Compare this with statements in that same book confirming that the preacher knew that man's body and spirit are separated at death:

■   Eccl. 3:20-21 -
     All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
     Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward,
     and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

So, is there a consciousness beyond death? There's still more that could be shared on that - and I shall come back and share them.

Luke 20:38
For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

olabowale:
I know you are not ignorant, but just arrogant. Arrogancy is worst. Thats what led Pharaoh to perish. It is the same desease that Satan suffers.

I am not like you. I do not puff up. It is what you did against the Christian when you were a "fake" muslim. The same fakery hasn't left you. Now that you are christian, your problem is compounded by the "Uphoric desease" that plagues Christianity.

Now to my statement: I said being referred to in the Qur'an as "people of the book," does not mean that "you are declared as "intelligent people!" I hope your eyes can read and your "heart" can understand. Although, i have my reservations.

Aburo, your case is strange. I want to know how being called people of the books simply mean people of intelligent, especially when you call a human being, who "used to eat, used the toilet, and wept, etc," as god, among and in addition to father, and ghost.

Ojoro owo e poju. Moo mo e ton. Pata pata poro godo. Ignorance is what will make a man calls another god and or calls him co-god!

My rejoinder was to nanayisha; and if you're the only ignorant muslim on the forum, others have seen it several times, which would make it unnecessary to prove the point.

Pastor AIO:
What is it about demons that allows them to be captured on film while they cannot be seen by the naked eye?

Well, we cannot say exactly what the nature of demons are in all things, nor do we understand everything about their manifestations. However, although I have not seen one myself, there are a few people I know who have seen them manifest visibly - either face to face, or in a mirror reflecting them.

Pastor AIO:
Again I wonder, What is a spirit? And what are the qualities exhibited by spirit?

There are different spirits; when we use the term, it is not restricted to just the human spirit, or even demonic spirits. I've tried to explain some of these qualities earlier.

IMCCN:
If tithe paying is not necessary Jesus would not have made that statement He made in Matthew 23:23
But just like everything else, people will always have, look for, make up and invent reasons for not doing whatever they do not believe in or want to do.

Apt. Thank you.

KunleOshob:
@Jesoul
The bible was not given to us or sent to us by the holy spirit, the early chrisitans never used it in the format we use it today. the bible was compiled by catholic bishops around the year 356AD under the supervision of emperor constantine of Rome(A pagan) There are several versions and translations of the bible in existence which contradict each other. Even the popular Kings James version as been identified to have 300,000 translation errors. Several books considered as scripture by the early christians were omitted from the bible. There are also other bibles with different contents which did not originate from the catholic church surch as the greek orthodox bible and the ethopian bible. My dear i know we christians are sentimental about the bible and through church indoctrinantion we have been made to believe it is perfect. this is not so as there is no evidence from the holy spirit that the bible as we have it is from him or it is perfect. The hand and influence of man is heavily manifest in the bible even if you choose to deny it. That is not to say that the bible does not contain the word of God, it does but it also contains the opinions and biases of the Men that wrote the various books in it and the men that compiled it. The excuse that it is the inability of man to understand the bible doesn't hold water. cause the bible was written by men for the consumption and understanding of man. God would not present a book to us that we would not be able to fully understand if it was truly meant for us. Even when the early christians received the gift of speaking in tongues, some of them also received the gift of interpreting this tongues(unlike what we have today) so God would not give us something for our benefit that we cannot understand. Your excuse is the stereo type excuse of the clergy who can't even understand or explain some of these inconsistences in the bible. In my using the bible i let the spirit guide me based on the two greatest commandements Jesus left us and anything that does not conform to the spirit of christ in the bible i take with a pinch of salt.

@Kunle,

The first thing I would like to ask is this: is your ‘Christian’ faith a Biblical one or not?

I'm not the only concerned about this, and we can see that Jesoul'[/b]s rejoinder above points to the same thing. Many people just follow these allegations against the Bible by rote and not because they have actually checked for themselves if these things are so. Even if the early Christians did not have a canon as we do today, they definitely were not confused as to what the Christian message was – nor were they clueless as to what doctrines comprised their faith and which ones were contrary to their faith. It is such a laughable adventure for someone to hold these allegations against the same Book while appealing to it in his arguments in Christian doctrines.

[list]Isn’t it queer that the very Book accused of 300,00 errors is the very Book that brought me to the knowledge of the Saviour and Redeemer of all humanity?

Isn’t it queer that with all the allegations made against that one Book, [b]you don’t even know where you stand?

Isn’t it queer that with the allegations made against the Bible as being collated by a “pagan”, the man whom God used to bring these blessings to the world – ABRAHAM – was a “pagan” as well? (Josh. 24:2).

Isn’t it queer that the very Book that has been accused and maligned is the one you pretend to appeal to, so that whatever does not conform to the love of Christ you take with a pinch of salt? Is it not in that same Book that you find the love of Christ?

Isn’t it queer that the so-called “blanked-out” books you refer to do not add to your faith? Do you even believe and practise your ‘Christian’ faith based on any one of those so-called “blanked out” books?[/list]

My dear Kunle, the path you’re pursuing is nothing strange – you’re not alone. There are many I have met who appeal to these same excuses and more: they do not know where their hearts are, nor can they actually set their faith on what they postulate. If the Bible is not enough for these people because God used a “pagan” to collate the canon we have today, nothing will be enough for them even if God Himself were to come down and write the Bible with His own finger! Your arguments are not new: we have seen so many instances where you confuse your own assumptions.

That Book accused of 300,000 “errors” will decide your future. If its message is suspect to you, no worries: you can stop making these pretences of “believing” in it and yet accusing it.

H2O2:
I love it how when a Christian speaks up, suddenly these irrational buffoons [or atheists - whatever you call them] say they are being judgemental, bigoted, and close-minded. Claiming christians are uneducated, yet their ideas are hailed intellectually superior and logical. Morons!

Well, to be fair, we can't assume that all atheists are morons or buffoons. There are certain things that happen in our world which even some of us Christians (speaking especially for myself) simply have no clue. I think that some atheists are seriously seeking to understand these phenomena as well, even though the questions they ask are of somewhat a different nature. All they are asking is this (IMHO): is there no other way one could understand these phenomena other than in supernatural terms? Yes, we as Christians should speak up - when need be; and we should listen as well. Most people may not take our answers, but the rejection does not change our convictions about the reality of these supernatural phenomena.

Regards.

[b]L[/b]ive _{Luke 20:38}.

Perhaps this question should have been addressed to Muslims, not Christians.

KunleOshob:
Since Abraham was from Ur in Babylon, logic stands to reason that other people from that region must have known and worshipped Abraham's God. Could it be that other religions in that area(babylon) in biblical times were also worshipping the same God albeit tainted by tribe and tradition to look and seem diffrent from the God of the Bible?

There were indeed some besides Abraham who worshipped the same God. But if the Babylonians all worshipped the same God, He would not have asked the patriarch to leave his pagan background to a place that God would reveal to him.

olabowale:
Please open one. Alot of Muslims, including myself are ignorant. But islam is safeguard from ignorance. There is no inconsistency in Islam.

My rejoinder was to nanayisha; and if you're the only ignorant muslim on the forum, others have seen it several times, which would make it unnecessary to prove the point.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
You have not done so not even once all you have been doing is quoting totally irrelevant scripture and attempting to force another meaning in to them. I challenge you once again. Quote the clear injunction directed at christains that implies, suggests or even remotely encourages them to tithe. If you cannot quote that scripture then you have no cas and it is no use refering me to any previous post to confuse me others who might be reading this thread. Just quote the scripture in your next post. i am sure one or two lines with biblical reference should suffice.

I have quoted just one verse, which was dismissed out of hand by antagonists against tithes; so I refrained from discussing that verse further and instead ask simple questions. The reason for my approach this way is to help those who are too drive with their dismissals to reflect and see where they have been making fallacious assertions and directly contradicting Scripture - which is why I would like you to sort yourself out of the conundrum you have knotted yourself in as regards Melchizedek.

I have not see you make any reference to what I requested yesterday - to please go back and check to see if there are not a few things you have wrongly asserted. The point is this: if you make such seriously contradictory statements against what Scripture teaches, why should anyone take you seriously and assume that you even have a clue about what the Bible teaches on this subject at all?

KunleOshob:
My sister i implore you as a christian iit is wrong to add to or remove from the word of God, in your zeal to encourage tithes supposedly for "God's work" do fall in to the temptation of manipulating his word just to prove your point. God does not need your tithe, but the less priviledge around you do.

I am seriously ashamed for your sake. You would notice that all through my discussions in this thread, I have not been ferreting quotes from sources outside the Bible - I don't have any problem with a few who have employed such quotes; but I long anticipated that people would bring this allegation against pilgrim.1, and that was why my discussion has stayed on the Bible and nothing else! I have not removed or added anything - and those of you who have been removing and adding by "collectively condemning" what God never once condemned should have a deep reflection about this behaviour.

Second, the highlighted part of your statement is very shameful. Let us even for the sake of antagonists like you, assume that God does not need our tithes, you still come back to assert that the less privilege around us do! In other words, we should not give tithes to God but actually give them to the less privileged! Are you not seriously in need of a check up, Kunle? The very thing you condemned "collectively" is the same thing you're asking us to give to the less privileged!

Dear bros, you seriously need to go back and plead before God that He should open your eyes to His Word and ways. I know that is like asking a huge thing upon your pride. But I make that requeston one basis: the serious malady of your fallacious assertions which are contrary to His Word. In so many instances, you have made wild statements which have been seriously opposite to Biblical declations. I do not often do this, but if you cannot take that advice to treat yourself to some humility, I would only come back and point you to those mishaps and leave you to your hubris.

Pastor AIO:
I don't usually put too much credence on hearsay. And that skepticism extends to things that I see on camera and youtube and stuff like that.

I don't put much credence on hearsays and camera manipulation either. But all things given, even when these events are presented for close examination, one cannot dismiss them out of hand. As in this one: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-178839.160.html#msg3044152

3. Demon in Photo?

Joe Martinez discovers a strange image of something looking like a weird dog over his left shoulder in a photo he took several years ago. The Paranormal society that studied the picture did not suspect a hoax, as there was no evidence of double printing. Others who took a photo of that incident did not spot any dogs around Joe on that day. What do you make of it?


[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t87rJxKaoQ&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Source: YouTube

Tasma:
No I don't assume christian or any other faith is allergic to education and enlightenment, I just wonder why it's necessary to attach the faith in incredible stories to this cause. Can human beings not be good or do good without the commitment to religion? Are non-religious people necessarily evil?

This shows that you really have no clue as to what is spirituality. From your OP you seem to have pitted those elements against Christianity rather than understand that the Christian faith is not antithetical to them.

KunleOshob:
My dear you have not shown me one single scripture that says or suggests that as christian we should tithe based on the Melchizedek priesthood. There is no such injunction.

I ahve done so again and again and showed that it is not be LAW or compulsion. Rigid minded people and legalists always want to make everything they read in Scripture to be based on the LAW - and yet they have no clue what the Law teaches! Bros, you should take a step back and chill out. . . look at what Scripture says and then you will understand that what you have been assuming from the Law is simply the direct opposite! That is why I have been asking you to please go take another look at the rejoinders and see where you ahev it all wrong all this while. Whenever you return, please return with a good grasp of what they say, not what you suppose they would say.

KunleOshob:
My dear i have to sign off now would continue this tommorow. All christians must be set free from this shackles of tithes

What Christians need to be delivered from is the legalistic spirit peddling the dishonest assertion that God condemned what He never once condemned! You cannot stand to legislate for God on an issue that you continue to make hugely convoluted and evasive arguments on.

Good evening.

KunleOshob:
Okay if you haven't been using extrabiblical sources, please show me where it is written in the bible that as a christian you can tithe based on the priesthood of melchizedek

That is what I have been showing you - the same reason why you have been dismissing it out of hand and condemning it where no Scripture condemned it. For this reason, I have simply sought to ask questions and wait for your answers.

Are you satisfied that there's nothing you need to reconsider in the previous rejoinders?

KunleOshob:
I haven't made any assumptions from any extrabiblical source, all my assertions have been purely biblical you are the one that is trying to force another meaning into the issue of Abraham's tithe to Mel.

Kunle, please refrain from assertive allegations, please.

If anything, I have never sought to run to extra-Biblical sources to prove anything - we all know you are the one in recent times that have been posting all sorts from all other sources and websites to force your views. The recent one you posted only turned out to buttress what I have been saying, rather than weaken my position. Besides, since we resumed this discussion, the only who has been hooting for "extra-Biblical" equiping is you, not me.

KunleOshob:
And i haven't been evasive in my answers i answered to the limit of information which the bible gave on Mel. You are the one trying to make further assumptions.

It is from the same Bible that I offered those questions. Rather than make these assertions, do you care to go through and then see how you have not been able to point it as stated in the Bible?

KunleOshob:
Psalm 110:4:

   for the Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
     “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek


Priest forever implies he lives forever.

That is not a testimony that Melchizedek lives forever. If anything, that was pointing to the One to whom the promise was made: CHRIST. Let me show you:

(a) If that was spoken about Melchizedek, would it make any sense to you, Kunle? That would be as much as to say: "YOU" [Melchizedek] "ARE A PRIEST FOREVER IN THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK". That verse was not testifying that Melchizedek lived forever.

(b) That verse was pointing to CHRIST, for the oath was to HIM -

    ●   Hebrews 5:5-6
        'So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
         but he that said unto him,
         Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
         As he saith also in another place,
         Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.'

    ●   Hebrews 6:20
         Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,
         made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

KunleOshob:
My dear i am not being evasive, unlike you i don't add my assumptions to what the bible says. And what makes you think there can't be more than one high priest. The bible never said there was only one high priest as you are wronglly assuming. I already explained to you that the bible is too scanty on Melchizedek and we are not adequately biblically equipped to thrash out the issue. But if i don't respond to your posts you would say i am being evasive. My dear i don't force my assumptions into scripture. so lets limit our discuss towhat is clearly written in the bible and not make any assumptions. If i were to refer you to extra biblical references on Melchizedek which i have, i am not sure you would be so excited about him, but then again the references might just be wrong.

The references might be wrong, and if you referred me to it, would they confirm your assertions so far? Besides, I have never asked you to add your assumptions; but your being evasive (apologies) is a fact now, because several of the questions I offered were simply scuttle round. Care to take another look and see if indeed there is something you might have to reconsider?

@Kunle,

Please go through my rejoinder above and see if there is not something you may want to reconsider. The answer is there, many people miss it - but don't rush: just carefully go through and see for yourself. If you're not clear, I shall point out the same and maybe that would help you see what you have been missing out. Cheers.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Granted it is not every christian doctrine that christ taught, but i previously mentioned that the apostles also NEVER preached tithes so i don't know why you wet to this length to address the issue whilst ignoring the part i said apostles also never taught it. infact it wasn't smuggled into christianity until around the seventh century as you rightly know

Sorry, there are many allegations one may make about things that were "smuggled" into Christianity - it is anybody's interpretation, especially where they are secular. I don't take my facts from them - if that doesn't suit you, no worries: the Bible is sufficient to discuss the subject as we have been engaged on it so far, No?

Second, because people often make these excuses that Christ never mentioned tithes and the apostles never taught about it, that is why I have been repeating where they did. At least now, many people have stopped making the glib assertion that Christ said absolutely nothing about tithes - and if the apostles never taught anything about tithes, we shall come by to see it, starting from hebrews 7. This is why I'm taking it easy with you and asking simple questions - the way you either answer or evade those questions will determine how honest you are at examining this subject.

KunleOshob:
So how does all this story imply that christians should tithe

Call them story - it's a cheap cop-out. Would you be gracious enough to attend upon the questions or just turn a blind eye to them?

KunleOshob:
Tithing is not God's injunction for christians and there is no evidence that tithers are better blessed than non tithers. In fact i know a lot of faithfully tithers that are always flat broke.

I also know more faithful opposers to tithes who go around begging their tithing family members for change to tide over to the following week or month.

Let me follow your reasoning:

KunleOshob:
(a)  WHO is He that lives perpetually? =According to hebrews8 melchizedek

(a) Melchizedek, yes? Ok.

KunleOshob:
(b)  If we say that it is Melchizedek, then are we saying that he is the same as Christ?= Bible does not say so

(b) No? Okay.

KunleOshob:
(c)  If we say No, he is not Christ, then are we saying that he is also currently a priest?= The bible says he is a priest forever

Still a priest, yes? ok.

KunleOshob:
(d)  If we say Yes, he is a priest currently, then how many highpriests do we have?=The bible doesn't say

Why are you being evasive here, oga? Did the Bible never tell you the answer? Okay, here:

    You said that Melchizedek is a priest forever, then what about Christ?
    Does that not make TWO instead of ONE?

There is a reason I'm asking you this question directly, Kunle. Please don't be evasive.

KunleOshob:
(e)  If we say only one highpriest, where then does that leave Melchizedek?=The bible says Melchizedek is a high priest

Being evasive again, not so? Please answer the question and stop doodling. Where does that lave Melchizedek - if Melchizedek is a HIGH PRIEST, how many HIGH PRIESTS are there?

KunleOshob:
(f.)  If we have no clue about the priesthood of Melchizedek, is that not being evasive?= we cannot add our assumptions to the word of God.

I'm not asking you to add your assumptions - just answer the questions. The ones you added have been wasted already.

KunleOshob:
(g)  If we say that indeed Melchizedek is is the one in Heb. 7:8, then where is it in Scripture -
      especially because it says in that verse "it is witnessed that he liveth"
      WHERE is it witnessed or testified that He lives?= Psalm 110:4 and other books not included in the bible by the catholic church

Edit: Em, Psalm 110:4 does not testify or witness that Melchizedek lives for ever, sir. So where indeed does it testify that He lives on??

KunleOshob:
(h)  Do we take Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek as literal -
     "Without father, without mother, without descent,
       having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"? = Yes

Okay, I hear - it is LITERAL, ba?

KunleOshob:
(i.)  If we do not take that as literal, how should it be understood?= As i told you earlier we are ill euipped to thouroughly thrash out this issue of Melchizedek

In order words, you cannot find the answer from the Bible, NO?

KunleOshob:
(j.)  Is there any reference outside Hebrews 7, Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
       where we could deduce that Melchizedek lives perpetually and
      "continueth ever"? This is because Heb. 7:8 says that --
      "it is testified that he lives [perpetually]" (AMP)
       I want to know where it is testified - where in Scripture is that testimony!!= As i told you earlier some books available to the apostles and early christians were omitted from the bible

In other words, you are not satisfied with what the Bible says, NO?

Okay, please attend to the ones we can find from the Bible and let's sort these out. No prevarications, sir. Thank you.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
All this back and forth story tire me O! anyway the teachings of christ and the apostles directed us adequately when it comes to christian giving i don't know why you have decided to add you own to their directions cause one thing is clear if tithes was meant to be part of christian worship christ would have taught us himself and the apostles would have also instructed it in their epistles. But alas!!

There are many things we practice today and hold with tight fist which we don't find in the Gospels - such as how to give in CHURCH. It is until we go to the epistles that we find instructions on such a teaching.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ taught us anything about women keeping silence in Church - until we turn to the epistles.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ said anything about head covering for women - it is in the epistles we find them.

There is no place in the Gospels where Christ taught us anything about circumcision - we have to turn to the epistles to be able to understand its teachings in the NT.

I could list over 25 things dear to Christians which you will not find any reference as a direct teaching by Christ in the Gospels; but they are believed and practiced today simply because the apostles taught about them in the epistles. This weak excuse that because Christ did not teach about tithes in the NT, therefore you guys will legislate to condemn what he never once condemned - that is the silliest and most dishonest crap I ever heard coming from people who should know better!

I have repeatedly pointed these things out, only to be constantly accused every so often of evading questions where I have directly answered them! It has become the systematic gimmick coming from most tithe opposers to recoil with circular excuses when asked to deal with issues - and to come back with that lame drivel up there after it has been retired as a sequester, is to make one wonder if you guys really have any gist to your complaints. If not, no worries - we continue to be entertained by the roundabout dance!

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgrim.1 Jesus said that if we love him we would keep his commandments. his commandments were to love God and to love our fellow man, he also taught us that we can demostrate our love for God by helping our fellow man. He never taught us to pay tithes and he never taught us that loving God means giving offerings(even though he commended the widow's mite). I wonder why as a christian you would prefer man made doctrines and allusions to the clear teaching of our lord Jesus christ. the Melchizedek example you keep harping on is as no bearing on christianity.

Since you allege that they are man-made doctrines, no worries. You who know the scriptures should use the same to answer the few questions I have offered about Melchizedek above. They won't hurt you, because for now I have decided to humour you and let's receive your own teachings to see how well established your excuses are.

KunleOshob:
Hebrews 7:5
5 Now the law of Moses required that the priests, who are descendants of Levi, must collect a tithe from the rest of the people of Israel,[a] who are also descendants of Abraham

Please I want to see the version from where you quoted that verse - since you have a problem with the ones I used, please provide the translation or version and let's help you see how they have cheated you free of charge.

I have often told you, and yet you made no comment or argued against the fact: that my persuasions to tithe is not based on any Law [Moses, Sinaitic, old covenant, Levitical, etc]. They are not based on LAW but rather on LIFE ("the power of an endless life"!!

KunleOshob:
I just thought i should point out this verse to you which makes it CLEAR that it was the law which required the levites to collect tithes that was anulled in verse 12 and CONDENMED in verse 18. This is clearly evident cause after stating what the law states in verse 5 there was no need to repeat it's contents again in verse 12 and 18, it was already stated which law was being condenmed in verse 5 and referenced in your favourite verse 8. I know my dear one would still search for loopholes in this statement but it is the glaring truth and if you cannot come up with biblical evidence that it was another law being refered to i suggest you rest your case

lol, do you not see how very laughable are your arguments? Let me ask you a few questions:

   * Have you ever reasoned out the fact that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek?

   * Have you ever wondered what LAW made Levi to pay tithes?

   * Have you ever wondered that the Law did not originate tithes?

   * Have you ever wondered that the same Law does not nullify what it did not originate?

   * Have you ever seen the fact that both the Levites and all that belonged to them
      paid tithes to Melchizedek even before any law was enacted?

   * Have you ever wondered that Abraham's tithes was not based on any Law?

Did Hebrews say that because of the setting aside of Judaism, therefore the tithes that came before it had to be condemned?

You're trying to be humourous on these blind spots - and that is why I will just be reserved and ask you to answer some questions henceforth. It is easy to keep alleging issues against others where you never will attend upon simple questions. If you evade these questions, Kunle, believe me I shall waste no time to bleach this malady that has become your second worry in recent times.

Shalom.

Dear KunleOshob,

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg3042082#msg3042082 date=1225894726]Just again for your attention, Kunle:

(a) WHO is He that lives perpetually?

(b) If we say that it is Melchizedek, then are we saying that he is the same as Christ?

(c) If we say No, he is not Christ, then are we saying that he is also currently a priest?

(d) If we say Yes, he is a priest currently, then how many highpriests do we have?

(e) If we say only one highpriest, where then does that leave Melchizedek?

(f.) If we have no clue about the priesthood of Melchizedek, is that not being evasive?

(g) If we say that indeed Melchizedek is is the one in Heb. 7:8, then where is it in Scripture -
especially because it says in that verse "it is witnessed that he liveth"
WHERE is it witnessed or testified that He lives?

(h) Do we take Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek as literal -
"Without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"?

(i.) If we do not take that as literal, how should it be understood?

(j.) Is there any reference outside Hebrews 7, Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
where we could deduce that Melchizedek lives perpetually and
"continueth ever"? This is because Heb. 7:8 says that --
"it is testified that he lives [perpetually]" (AMP)
I want to know where it is testified - where in Scripture is that testimony!!


I look forward to your answers - give them your best shot. Since what I have been saying do not make any sense and you keep alleging that I was being manipulative, I've decided to let you teach us while I zip up. Thank you very largely. [/quote]Could you be so kind to answer those questions? Thank you.

Just again for your attention, Kunle:

(a)  WHO is He that lives perpetually?

(b)  If we say that it is Melchizedek, then are we saying that he is the same as Christ?

(c)  If we say No, he is not Christ, then are we saying that he is also currently a priest?

(d)  If we say Yes, he is a priest currently, then how many highpriests do we have?

(e)  If we say only one highpriest, where then does that leave Melchizedek?

(f.)  If we have no clue about the priesthood of Melchizedek, is that not being evasive?

(g)  If we say that indeed Melchizedek is is the one in Heb. 7:8, then where is it in Scripture -
     especially because it says in that verse "it is witnessed that he liveth"
     WHERE is it witnessed or testified that He lives?

(h)  Do we take Heb. 7:3 about Melchizedek as literal -
    "Without father, without mother, without descent,
      having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"?

(i.)  If we do not take that as literal, how should it be understood?

(j.)  Is there any reference outside Hebrews 7, Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
      where we could deduce that Melchizedek lives perpetually and
     "continueth ever"? This is because Heb. 7:8 says that --
     "it is testified that he lives [perpetually]" (AMP)
      I want to know where it is testified - where in Scripture is that testimony!!


I look forward to your answers - give them your best shot. Since what I have been saying do not make any sense and you keep alleging that I was being manipulative, I've decided to let you teach us while I zip up. Thank you very largely.

Just to show you that I wasn't kidding:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg3041967#msg3041967 date=1225893240](a) the Elizabethan English word "receiveth" does not point only to the past in tenses - it could also point to the future and a present continuous.[/quote]Let me show you a few examples in the KJV:

       ●   Matthew 7:8 -- For every one that asketh receiveth

       ●   Matt. 10:40  -- He that receiveth you receiveth me,
            and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

       ●   Matt. 18:5 -- And whoso shall receive one such little child
            in my name receiveth me.

       ●   1 Cor. 2:14 -- But the natural man receiveth not the things
            of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither
            can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

       ●   Rev. 14:11 -- And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up
            for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night,
            who worship the beast and his image,
            and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Would you say that all these instances in the same NT are referring to "(past tense)"?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
All said and done you have failed again to show us were it was directed, instructed,implied or even suggested that christians should pay tithes based on Melchizedek priesthood or Abraham's free will offering of a one off tithe of the spoil of war that wasn't even his property in he first place.

Nor have you been able to show where God asked you to legislate for Him in condemning what He never at any time (OT or NT) condemned! He never condemned it, and to try to do so for Him is dishonest, Kunle. The argument based on using the levitical priesthood to condemn tithes is dishonest - as the mention of tithes in Hebrews 7 was never based on the Law - go and find me the one place where Abraham's tithes and Levites tithes to Melchizedek was based on any Law.

KunleOshob:
Hebrews7:8 refered to Melchizedek and the bible tells us that melchizedek lives perpetually.

That brings us back to the question: how many high priests do you have in the new covenant, Kunle?

KunleOshob:
I also won't allow you to get away with your slight manipulation of scripture highlighted above. The word used was receiveth(past tense) and not receives.

I am sorry for you, my dear. Are you so vacant of the fact of what the Greek text say? It is not "my" manipulation, as I never translated any version of the Bible. But let me show you 3 things:

(a) the Elizabethan English word "receiveth" does not point only to the past in tenses - it could also point to the future and a present continuous.

(b) other English version there on that verse show that it is a present continuous tense: He receives them.

(c) the Greek text does not use the word "receive", so you cannot argue that "the word used was receiveth(past tense)" - which is quite dishonest. You're assuming it so, and forcing your miscalculations into that verse because you wanted it to read as such.

With the case of (c) above, let me point you to something intrinsic here: the versions that use the word or term either do so with --

    ●   "receives" - NASB, NKJV, Weymouth,

    ●   "receiveth" - KJV,

    ●   "are received" (not "were received"  -- AMP, NCV,

Most other versions are just silent: NIV, NLT, ESV, CEV, ASV, YLT, Darby, HCSB, RV, - the reason being that the Greek text does not use your "receiveth" in that verse.

I pointed out the basis of tithes in the NT using versions which apply the the term "receiveth" or "receives" - and my reason for doing so are as earlier outlined:

         --  tithes are not based on the Law, the Law only incorporated it

         --  tithes are not based on ceremonies, but rather on LIFE

That is why the contrast is between "men who die" and the One who lives perpetually. It was not a "law" that Abraham saw, but the intrinsic principle of a never ending life!

Even "men who die" (the Levites) paid tithes to the One who lives perpetually! The question is simple: who is the One who lives perpetually in Hebrews 7:8 - if you say it was Melchizedek, I've been trying to find out if Melchizedek is equated to the Son of God (verse 3). If it does make that equation, then again, we would have to answer these necessary questions:

          -- how many highpriests do we have today?

          -- who is He that "continueth ever" according to v. 24-25?

          -- where is it testified that He lives perpetually?

That verse says that it is testified of Him that He lives perpetually - I would like to know where in Scripture we can find that testimony!! Please share and let's resolve this issue.

If you're not clear, please ask - and I shall point you to what exactly the Greek texts say on that verse - so we can see if your assertion that "word used was receiveth(past tense)" is based on any clue of your knowledge of the verse.

Shalom.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
The post you refered to does not answer the question. I would repeat the question again here: which law in specifc terms(with bibical evidence) was being refered to in Hebrews 7: 12 & 18. You have to be specific about the exact law bieng refere to here Your arguement that the one off tithes of mechizedek(which was not recomended as christian doctrine) was not based on law does not even attempt to answer the question.

There are two things to highlight in yours:

1. The Melchizedek case

2. The Law in question.

First, the Melchizedek case: to say it is not a Christian doctrine is to argue as if it is not in Hebrews 7:8. I kept asking several times: WHO is He that receives tithes on the fact that it is testified He lives perpetually? If it was not a Christian doctrine, would such a fact be stated in that verse as lucidly as we have seen? Rather than excuse the fact, what substance have you really provided thereto?

Second, the "Law" in question - that law was the one received under the Levitical priesthood. In that Law, there was "a commandment" (remember, "a commandment" of Levi to take tithes "according to the Law". That Law received under the Levitical priesthood was being set aside, but does that necessarily condemn tithes? No.

The reasons why the Levitical priesthood and law did not negate tithes are these:

     ●  the levitical priesthood appertained to Judaism

     ●  the old covenant operated under the Levitical priesthood

     ●  the Levitical priesthood only affected the law given under it

     ●  the Levitical priesthood and law did not supercede the priesthood of Melchizedek

     ●  before the birth of Levi, the priethood of Melchizedek was divinely recognized

     ●  what the Levitical priesthood did not originate, it cannot nullify

     ●  even Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham

     ●  there was no Law upon which tithes was forced upon Abraham

     ●  Abraham did not need a Law, but a priethood - that of Melchizedek

     ●  those who recognize this principle understand what Heb. 7:8 states

     ●  the basis of the priesthood of Melchizedek was not the Levitical Law

     ●  the basis of the Melchizedek priesthood is the power of an endless life

     ●  it is on that basis (as above) that Hebrews 7:8 speaks of tithes in the NT

     ●  the Levitical priesthood and law do not condemn Hebrews 7:8

     ●  to argue that the setting aside of the levitical law is to condemn tithes,
         is to be deliberately dishonest with Hebrews 7:8 ---
         'but there he receiveth them, of whom
          it is witnessed that he liveth"

     ●  Judaism does not negate the Melchizedek priesthood

     ●  Judaism does not affect the Melchizedek priesthood

     ●  Judaism does not affect the "power of an endless life"

     ●  Judaism does not condemn tithes

     ●  Judaism was set aside, but not the priesthood of Melchizedek

     ●  Judaism did not remove the principle of "the Law" (Rom. 3:31)

     ●  Judaism does not deny Hebrews 7:8

     ●  Judaism does not condemn what it did not originate

     ●  Judaism does not legislate over the Melchizedek priesthood


All these are pointing to one thing: the Law that the people received under the Levitical priesthood does not condemn tithes, Kunle. In the first place, I have said so many times that I do not base my reasons for tithing on the Levitical law - every single time I mentioned this, you guys got stuck on the Levitical priethood and never saw the case of Hebrews 7:8. That verse tells us that He who receives tithes does not do so on the basis of a Law, but rather because He lives perpetually!!

Hebrews 7:8 does not argue tithes being received 'THERE' on the basis of any Law - please go and see. You can mangle the law received under the Levitical priesthood and even the entire Jewish system as best please you - but brother, remember one thing constantly:

                "but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth"

It never said that He receives them because of "a commandment according to the Law" - but rather:

     ●  He receives them on the basis of His living perpetually!

     ●  He receives them on the basis of LIFE, not Law!

     ●  He receives them on the basis of an unchangeable priesthood!

     ●  He receives them because of WHO He is, not because of a religion!

     ●  He receives them because of what is testified of HIM!

     ●  He receives them because He preceded the whole system of Levi!

     ●  He receives them because NOTHING replaces HIM!

     ●  He receives them because He is greater than the old covevant!

     ●  He receives them because He is not from the Levitical lineage!

     ●  He receives them because He continueth ever!

I have said so many times: my persuasions to tithe are not based on Law received under the Levitical priesthood; but since that is where all your hopes are settled, sorry - you missed it by a million miles!

Everytime you argue tithes and try to condemn it, just think about the very Person in Hebrews 7:8 that you are seeking to condemn! That verse says without question that He receives tithes because He lives perpetually!

Regards.