₦airaland Forum

@Nimshi,

Nimshi:
Pilgrim.1: I must thank you for your post #84 above in respose to Perrito4u; it is encouraging to know that I'm not the only one feeling he's attempting to weave through and not giving as much as he's been receiving.

I have a question for you, Pilgrim.1, and it is a brief one: is the answer to Perrito4u's question clear from the text of my post in blue? If yes, fine; if not, please let me know why not. I quoted that explanation because I thought it was eloquent and, more importantly, to the point; Perrito4u denies this, so I'll like to have another's opinion. Thank you.

First, I should rather be thankful to you guys for helping me reconsider my thoughts about paradise. Whatever were my previous thoughts, it was refreshing to be stirred to once again go back and see if they were quite well established.

As regards your answers to Perrito4u, I thought the part in blue was brilliant. I have read it through several times over and used it to check every single verse on the subject in my study note. If there was something therein that would have aroused my attention, I sure would have raised it.

Well done again, and many thanks.

@KunleOshob,

Now, let me take the time to attend on the more important gist.

KunleOshob:
I don't believe that my dear pilgrim.1 that tithes on the basis of Melchizedek priesthood does not know that the bible implies that Melchizedek lives perpetually. I would refer you to verse 3 of the same chapter which says : He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Lol, if you assumed that I did not know (or had ignored verse 3), why didn't you ask me? I had tried to avoid defining anyone's position for them, and that was why I often ask questions so that I don't run the risk of misreading them before they declare their position. Hmmm, the way you play this wooing sef, e don dey tire me O!

Anyway, here bros: I had recognized Hebrews 7:3 when trying to understand verse 8 and infact the whole of Hebrews and Genesis where the event occured. Notice something there, Kunle - Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God, not the other way round. What that chapter was establishing for us was just one thing: the unchangeable priesthood of Melchizedek, and not the endless life of Melchizedek. If there was anyone in the entire Bible that had an endless life, it was Jesus Himself - that is why that verse 3 stated that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God, and not the other way round.

Christ preceded Melchizedek; and before chapter 7, we learn about the preeminence of Christ over all things right from chapter 1:10 & 12 - "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. . . but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

The only other place part from Genesis and Hebrews where we read about Melchizedek is in Psalm 110:4. Why so? I submit it was to help us understand just two things:

    (a) the Levitical priesthood would not endure for all time

    (b) the priesthood of Melchizedek preceded all other priesthoods

This verse is a bit difficult to digest for some; but most people recognize that Melchizedek's genealogy was not recorded - for which cause it is said that he was "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life". This is pointing to the absence of any recorded genealogy, and not to the man himself. To suppose that Melchizedek lives perpetually (verse 8) is to encounter two major problems:

   (1)   there would be two figures that had no beginning nor end of life:
          Jesus and Melchizedek

   (2)  there would be no basis for the priesthood itself:
          for there cannot be two priests concurrently ministering
          in the heavenly tabernacle and altar.

If indeed Melchizedek was still a priest, could you tell me (a) if there are concurrently two highpriests? (b) who Melchizedek is ministering to today?

Actually, if Melchizedek is not still a priest today (shocking, I know), then where do I stand? Here: the Bible states that the type of priesthood that Melchizedek had was an "unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:24). Please calm down and pay very close attention to verses 24 & 25 -

           'But this man, because he continueth ever,
            hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able
            also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God
            by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them'.

Did you catch that, Kunle?  Now a few questions to help us think carefully:

       (a) WHO is "this man" in verse 24?
       It says in verse 24 that "this man" continueth ever - the same thing we see in v. 8 -
       "he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth"

       (b) WHO is this man that "continueth ever" in verse 24?
       If we say that it was Melchizedek, then we would have to deal with
       what the other statements in those verses point to!

       (c) WHO is this man that is "able to save to the uttermost" in verse 25?
        There is your answer - unless you deliberately want to ignore it,
        there is only One Person of whom Scripture testifies that ----
        He lives PERPETUALLY, for it is He who has the unchangeable priesthood!!
        That Person is JESUS CHRIST! He alone is able to save; He alone
        is the One who continueth ever.

There is only one Priest, Kunle - not two. To suppose that the One being testified of in verse 3, 8 and 24-25 is Melchizedek, is to throw yourself into further confusion.

I recognize that these things have a huge problem to many. That's no problem to me, because like I said, once you are able to grasp the particular literary style of the wirter of Hebrews, you will easily follow his pen.

Let me show you an example of his style: In Hebrews 11:17, the writer names Isaac as "only begotten son" of Abraham! This is another example of how the writer styles the covenant blessings - and anyone missing this would argue that the writer was deliberately contradicting Genesis! I don't think so; and I would like to leave it as a small assignment for you to consider - it's easy, I know; but if you can get the answer to that, then Hebrews 7 will not be difficult to see.

Enjoy!

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
On the issue of comparing jesus with Abraham, what i meant is that the crux of the matter was that Jesus was primarily being compared to Melchizedek and an analogy was taken from the superiority of melchizeek to Abraham to explain the greatness of Jesus. Jesus was not directly being compared with Abraham.

Grammar!   Oga mi, e joko si bi. The one thing to point out was that "yes", you did compare Jesus to Abraham. It is irrelevant at this point whatever you meant! So, to shout initially that you "never" did so, . . .hmm, make I chill!

@IDINRETE,

IDINRETE:
Hi Pilgrim
I'm fine thank you.
my questions is on the two verses 52 and 53 of Matthew ch 27 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

cheers.

Well, I know the enquiry is on Matthew 27:52-53. What I'm a lil wondering about is what exactly (or how precisely) we should be looking at the enquiry; but let me share a few - and then if it happens that it does not relate to your enquiry, I would be glad to reconsider.

● Matthew 27:52-53

● And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints
which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This verse points me to the event following the death and resurrection of Christ. Death is defined as ‘the body without the spirit’ (James 2:26). As we have seen, the body of Christ was buried in the grave (or sepulchre - Matt. 27:60 & Mark 15:46), but His human spirit was went on to the nether world, which we commonly refer to as the realm of the spirit.

This spirit-realm perhaps is one of the issues that many people have wondered about. Of course we know that the death of the body does not mean the non-existence of the human spirit. But then, where did Jesus go after the burial? The Bible speaks about that event in at least two ways:

● Act 2:31 - Jesus went to Hell (ie., hadēs, αiδης)
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,
that his soul was not left in hell,
neither his flesh did see corruption.

● 1 Peter 3:19-20 - Jesus went to the spirits in "prison"
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering
of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

In my thinking, these two spheres where Jesus went after His burial are not the same - and Luke 16:26 reminds us about the great gulf that divides them. Only Jesus alone was able to go to both spheres, for He alone emerged with the keys of hades and death (Rev. 1:18).

In any case, Scripture records that those dead saints who rose from the dead and appeared to many people happened to have done so following the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:53). I believe this was in fulfillment of prophecies in part, such as the following:

● Isaiah 26:19
Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead.

It doesn't stop there, though. One may ask what followed upon His descending to hadēs (αiδης). It seems that, first He went to declare two things to the disobedient spirits in "prison" - these two things were: (a) His victory; and (b) their judgement. Following that, He heralded His authority over all things - including hadēs and death (Rev. 1:18).

I shall pause here for your comments; and if per adventure I had trailed off from what you had in mind, I shall be glad to retrace my steps and attend upon what you present.

Cheers.

@naomijt,

I should rather be thanking you.

With regards to IDINRETE's enquiry, I'll try and give it a go (hoping that I don't get him wrongly).

Wow! That's something. If there's anyway it could be redeemed in some other kind, that would even be more awesome; if not, still I'm grateful. I would like my gift to be sent to this address: (here).

Thank you and God richly fill you many times over with His grace.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
To answer your question on hebrews 7: 8 which i have answered several times in the past, the person that received tithe and lived perpetualy being refered to in that passage is Melcizedek.

1. Here, men that are subject to death receive tithes.

2. There, He of whom it is testified that He lives perpetually receives them.

That's Hebrews 7:8 - if it was Melchizedek that was in view in that verse, you are saying he lives perpetually, yes? On what basis, Kunle?

KunleOshob:
My dear, as usual you fail to digest a post well before rushing to respond, i never stated Jesus was compared to Abraham. What i stated was that jesus was compared to Melchizedek who in that scripture was demonstrated to be greater than Abraham( the patriach/ greatest progenitor of the hebrews) and the reason being so that the people the letter was addressed to (hebrew people) would appreciate the greatness.

If you never stated that Jesus was compared to Abraham, then what is this in your previous quotes? Here -

(1) [list]

KunleOshob:
The idea behind comparing Jesus to Abraham was because was the most highly revered ancestor in Jewish history, he was regarded as someone very great.

[/list]

(2) [list]

KunleOshob:
Now demonstrating Jesus to be greater than there greatest ancestor would help them understand the greatness of Jesus better.

[/list]

(3) [list]

KunleOshob:
the whole of hebrews 7 was primarily to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham (Their greatest ancestor) by comparing Jesus to some already recorded in the scriptures as superior to Abraham.

[/list]

Go and check again O. . . abi you want me to draw out some more for you to show how many times you had been making that assertion? Were you not making the "comparison" between Jesus and Abraham in those quotes above?!?

@IDINRETE,

I'm doing okay, and you?

IDINRETE:
●   Matt. 27:52-53 (KJV) – ‘And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Hi pilgrim, how u dey,
This is one of the many verses in the bible that I have been struggling to comprehend.
This verse is mind boggling to me, can you please educate me on this verse.
Thanks.

Well, what exactly would you like me to focus on? The rising of the saints who left their graves. . in relation to Chrit's resurrection; or what might have happened to those same saints? I've had questions of this sort sent my way previously; but I don't want to presuppose yours. It would be my pleasure to share what I think when you can direct me on what you really would like me to address.

Cheers.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dear, i think you need a little bit of schooling in understanding bible scripture here First of all when reading any scripture, you have to understand the reason behind the writning of the scripture.

Thank you. If you had a clue about Biblical eschatology, you would not have been spinning around the basic of all subjects: the Law. Your assertions and vacant thoughts mixing the issues of the Law in issues of the new covenant is now a serious joke.

KunleOshob:
For instance the book of hebrew is a letter assumed to have been written by Paul the the hebrew people and it's basic aim is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over existing jewish practises and belief. The idea behind comparing Jesus to Abraham was because Abraham was the most highly revered ancestor in Jewish history, he was regarded as someone very great. Considering the fact that letter was addressed to the hebrew people who would appreciate the greatness of Abraham, he was used as an example to demonstrate the greatness of Jesus. Abraham's greatness had nothing to do with any priesthood.

Again, this is just another vacant exculpation. Think for a moment: was it only Abraham that was regarded as "very great" by the Jews? Moses and others enunciated in chapter 11 were men of great faith in hebrews - but those figures were not in "comparison" with or to the Lord Jesus. Go and read that same chapter 7 again and read other places where Abraham was spoken of - like Romans chapter 4. The NT has never in one instance tried to compare or contrast between Abraham and Jesus Christ - not in one instance. Everywhere you find Abraham mentioned, it was not as amtter of comparison with Christ, but rather to show how that through Abraham the promises of God have come to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

However, in Hebrews, Abraham is never spoken of as in comparison or contrast to Jesus Christ! If there was any reason why that would have been the case, there definitely should have been several reasons for the comparison. Did you provide any reason other than the vacant suggestion you read into the text?

KunleOshob:
He was just used as an example because he was the greatest man known to the hebrew people of that time. Now demonstrating Jesus to be greater than there greatest ancestor would help them understand the greatness of Jesus better.

It is sweet that you're dreaming up these things - however, they have no bearing on the mention of Abraham in Hebrews. The Hebrews already knew the greatness of Abraham, and other texts call upon us to appreciate the greatness of Abraham as well. It is an entirely moot point that the apostle would even have tried to compare Abraham to Jesus or vice versa - there just was no reason for the comparison - because it was not a matter of who was great or greater in that book!

KunleOshob:
Now to your hebrew 7: 8 which you are tended to quote out of context. What exactly does it say? Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually

You make so much noise about this particular verse, the problem is i fail to see how this even remotely suggests that tithes is applicable to christians.

Alleging that I quoted it out of context is not addressing the simple question I have asked. If you cannot answer that question, Kunle, you don't know what it says or you simply want to continue evading it! What are all the excuses you have been giving instead of answering that simple question? I have not asked you to see the relevance of its applicability to Christians - that was not the question.

The question still is: WHO is HE that receives TITHES because He lives PERPETUALLY?

Is that question so biting that you are at pains to keep scuttling round it?  Even when you must make excuses for that verse, Kunle, who is HE that lives perpetually? People who force their hubris into the text by assuming a "collective condemnation" where God never said so are never going to answer that question - you're only further confirming the case.

KunleOshob:
What this verse tries to demonstrate is that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the levite priesthood, this Melchizedek priesthood was now further equated to the priesthood of Jesus to demonstrate that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to the levite preisthood. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing in the verse that relates tithing to christian practise and doctrine.

WHO is HE that receives TITHES because it is testified that He LIVES PERPETUALLY?

KunleOshob:
Not even vaguely Again i wonder why you are trying to force justification for tithing into this scripture, if the writter of hebrews felt that christians ought to tithe, it would have been clearly stated, but what did the writer do?

Hebrews 7:8 - WHO is HE that receives TITHES because it is testified that He LIVES PERPETUALLY?

KunleOshob:
He set the law (of which tithing was referenced as a commandment in the law) aside in verse 12, and he further condenmed it describing it as weak and useless in verse 18. I know you would still argue on this point even though it is glaring. May be you can prove your points better by telling us in specific terms which law was set aside in verse 12(quoting fro the bible)and which one was condenmed in verse 18.

I have shown you again and again that the issue of tithes here is not the one based on the Law. Melchizedek did not receive TITHES from Abraham anywhere because of the Law - not one time. What the Law did not originate it cannot condemn or nullify! Because you really don't know what the Law is, that is why you keep schlepping this same sob story about the Levitical law and priesthood.

Em. . . Perrito4u,

Perrito4u:
Nimshi you can't give me a straight answer cause you know I'm right.

I'm sorry to observe you're wrong. Just stating you're right when you have refused to offer answers to his questions is quite suspect, don't you think?

Perrito4u:
Your actually trying to avoid the question.

That is not true - unless you're trying to deliberately confirm that you refused to even read through his answers.

Perrito4u:
All you talk about is JW's, but you try to avoid the Bible.

Were the verses cited in his replies from the JW magazines or from the Bible?

Perrito4u:
I can't have Bible conversations with Chris or Pilgrim about the Bible without you jumping in and bringing up religion and bringing up other topics.

Why did you not simply answer his questions, Perrito4u? We all have been talking about the same issues from the Bible, no?

Perrito4u:
Just remember you could not answer me the question,

Do I take it that it is because you have searched and not been able to offer simple answers to simple enquiries?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Obviously you have chosen not to go back and study the word of God for true understanding of the scripture. You have even further confused issues. Can you imagine you saying that Melchizedek collected tithes because he lives for ever where was that stated any where in the bible or are you as usual trying to force another meaning in to that scripture?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh deary me!   Kunle darling, where did your darling pilgrim.1 ever say that "Melchizedek collected tithes because he lives for ever"?

I only have asked that question on verse 8 of that chapter without trying to force my reading into the text; and because those who oppose and condemn tithes have forever refused to answer that simple question, I have not sought to go beyond what it states. If you do not care to offer an answer as simply as requested, why then allege your own misconception into my query on that verse?

KunleOshob:
the whole of hebrews 7 was primarily to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham (Their greatest ancestor) by comparing Jesus to some already recorded in the scriptures as superior to Abraham.

You're wrong, Kunle. Hebrews 7 does not seek to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham. I have to be firm with you here because you have failed to ask very important questions that would guide your thinking. Let me help you some:

    If the comparison was between Jesus and Abraham, then -

●  on what basis was that comparison?

●  on what priesthood was that comparison?

●  on what law was that comparison?

●  on what covenant was that comparison?

When you look closely, also ask yourself WHY the book of Hebrews would even need to compare between Jesus and Abraham - of what import was that to the Hebrews? Were they seeking to elevate Abraham and make much more of him than of Jesus? These conjectures you postulate are vacant - they have nothing to rest on other than your vacant personal assertions.

KunleOshob:
It wasn't primarily about tithes even though tithes was also condenmed and stated not to be relevant to the priesthood of christ.

Please, please and please, it was never once condemned. Nor does Scripture ever state that tithes were not relevant to the priesthood of Christ. You don't seem to understand the nature of that priesthood, that is why you don't understand what verse 8 is saying. For all intents and purposes, the Bible does not "state" what you are forcing it to say; and if it did ever state it so, please without dribbling round, just quote the verse directly where it stated it so.

At least, if I said that the Bible "stated" that outward circumcision is not relevant to the Christian, I have quoted the verses where the Bible categorically stated it so -

        --  1 Corinthians 7:19

        --  Galatians 5:2

        --  Galatians 5:3

        --  Galatians 5:6

        --  Galatians 6:15

Now, is there anywhere the Bible states the same thing about TITHES? Why allege that it "stated" a condemnation for tithes when you can't find that verse directly? This weak assertion that non-tithers make is the reason why your argument is fast losing grounds and becoming too soft to be of any serious concern.

If the Bible actually "stated" that tithes are condemned, please quote the verse directly and refrain from doodling on the subject.

KunleOshob:
The reason why tithes was anulled in verse 12 was clearly stated in verse 13. The reason being Jesus was not from the tribe of the levites. My dear i know you are a very intelligent girl, so you shouldn't find it very difficult to read and understand this very simple truths in the bible.

I am not that intelligent, believe me. Just because I argue these things passionately does not mean that I'm correct in all things - but, then even 13 does not negate the point made in verse 8. And if anything, verse 13 shows what I have been saying all along: my persuasions to tithe are not based on any reason to fulfill Judaism.

Judaism answers to the ministry of the Levites on two fundamental points:

                 * the Levitical priesthood

                 * the Law

However, when verse 13 states that "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar", we immediately see two things again:

                 * the tribe

                 * the altar

Jesus was not from the tribe of the Levites, but rather from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14), hence Moses spoke nothing about priesthood. Does that mean therefore that our Lord had no priesthood and no altar? Bros, He did - and here is where the whole thing eludes some people:

            * the priesthood - after the order of Melchizedek (vv. 15-17)

            * the power - after the power of an endless life (vv. 8, 16 & 24)

            * the principle - a heavenly High Priest (ch. 9:11)

            * the person - Jesus Himself (ch. 6:20)

            * the prototype - the HEAVENLY ALTAR (ch. 13:10 - "we have an altar"

In all these things, those who make the mistakes you keep making may not have seen these matters indeed - and that is why they don't have any answers to Heb. 7:8 but make all sorts of suggestions and excuses which scuttle round that verse.

KunleOshob:
I think the propblem is one of pride and not wanting to admit you are wrong on any issue you pitch your tent in, it is soo so obvious my dear that you are working to a predetermined answer and not willing to accept the truth or other views on this issue.

I would only acknowledge anything you say that is true - not the vacant statements you make without a reference for your "collective condemnation" which you dribbled into the Bible and call it "truth", lol. Until you calm down and go to God's Word, it would be hard for anyone to digest your vacant assertions.

Talk of pride? lol, how could I be proud to give my tithes? I'm sorry for you - tithing has nothing to do with pride; but if non-tithers play 'God' and use their vacant "collective condemnation" to mislead anyone, that is where we come in and set you guys straight.

Jolly yourself o jare!

"do Think This Will Have Any Positive Impact On Africans.?"

@funkelola, in what ways did you suppose that Obama may have positive impact on Africans? Besides the inspiration it may afford to many aspiring Africans who seek to reach their goals by dint of hardwork, would there be some other things you had in mind?

[quote author=tonye-t link=topic=189820.msg3030408#msg3030408 date=1225706340]pastor ibiyomie is a very simple but principled man of God,

WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN NOT TO SPEAK EVIL OF OUR MEN OF GOD AND LEAVE GOD TO PERSONALLY JUDGE THEM HIMSELF LIKE HE SAID IN HIS WORD[/quote]Hmmm, "simple" and/or "principled" does not include threatening someone with death for a JJ (journalistic job). If they felt she was mistaken and presented false reports in her journalism, there are other ways to have reacted - one of which was to engage the journalist and point out where they thought she had presented false gist.

Ibiyomie is not the only pastor in PH who has been attacked with public rumour, false gist, or unprincipled reporting. Why is Ibiyomie so upset that the best option to this imbroglio (in his view) is to slice Ibiene's life from off the face of the earth? Why?

shinystar:
What's Ibiyome's stress? How come our men of God are always threatening people who do not play along with death?

It perhaps points out the fact that not everyone who claims to have a relationship with God is actually having one. (Matthew 7:21)

KunleOshob:
That reference was just to demonstrate to the hebrew people the superiority of Christ over Abraham.

Wrong again. It was not Abraham that was in question in that verse - go and check again. You make these mistakles because you simply do not want to study that verse more closely. Abraham had no priesthood - and that verse showed that the priesthood of Melchizedek  supercedes the LEVITICAL priesthood. Now, which of these two priesthoods does our Lord Jesus Christ minister in - the Levitical or Melchzedek? If Christ is after the order of Melchizedek, what does Hebrews 7:8 demonstrate in reference to such verses as -

            ● Hebrews 5:8

            ● Hebrews 5:10

            ● Hebrews 6:20

            ● Hebrews 7:11

            ● Hebrews 7:17

            ● Hebrews 7:21

Because you don't see beyond your mistakes, that is why you mix these things up and end at verse 18 - well, take another look at verse 21 to see the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over that of Levi. From chapter 5, through ch. 6, and then through to ch. 7, it was emphatically demonstrated that the priesthood of Melchizedek was -

           * superior to the Levitical Law

           * superior to the Levitical priesthood

As such, my bros, Hebrews 7:8 categorically mentioned that the reason why He RECEIVES tithes is because He lives PERPETUALLY, which is what Heb. 7:16 shows in reference to the basis of the priesthood that our Lord ministers - "after the power of an endless life".

Before you make any assertion based on misconceptions, please go study these verses carefully. What you asserted for 7:8 is not so.

KunleOshob:
So stop confusing issues.

I wasn't. That's why I have tried to set you straight.

KunleOshob:
I suggest you go and read the passage again then answer which comandment was described as weak and useless in verse 18 and which law was set aside in verse 12. The answer lies clearly in verse 5 which mentions the specific commandment being anulled.

Oga, tithes in that whole chapter is not a matter of LAW, but of PRIESTHOOD!  

The One who lives perpetually receives tithes, not because it was based on the law under the levitical priesthood, but because the Melchizedek priesthood to which our Lord Jesus was called of God is after the power of an endless life! Lol.

Enjoy.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Same as the pharisees Jesus condemned in the the book of Matthew 23:23.

Don't be too quick to use a verse to condemn anyone. If anything, there are many verses that could be pulled rapidly to wash you as well.

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
i don't know why you keep asking for a single verse that condens tithing in the new testament when i have already given you two. NO matter how much you want to deny it Hebrews 7: 12& 18 clearly anull and condenm tithes.

You're trying to force your own readings for condemning tithes into those verses - whereas all honest opposers to tithes know that those verses do not condemn tithes, nor are tithes condemned in any single verse of the Bible. It is because you treat the Law in a way that the Bibloe never treats it, that is why you still make these huge mistakes to assert what the Bible never once did about the Law. I have already provided a few of those mishaps - and you have not been able to counter them. The moment you open your eyes to what exactly "the Law" is in the Bible, you will then see your mistakes.

KunleOshob:
It is very instructive that this condenmation comes immediately after the verse 8 which you have allowed to confuse you.

There is no condemnation of tithes anywhere in the Bible. If you are still vacantly assertive, please address the simple question I left you about Hebrews 7:8. Why have you been so evasive about that question?

KunleOshob:
Yes an example was given in verse 8 comparing Jesus christ to Melchidezek, but the practise of tithing was not even remotely suggested.

Please be honest, not suggestive. Verse 8 did not seek to compare Jesus Christ to Melchizedek. Incase you forgot, let me quote it again from two versions:

● Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood]
tithes are received by men who are subject to death;
while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are
received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].
~~ [AMPLIFIED]

● And here men that die receive tithes;
but there he receiveth them,
of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
~~ [KJV]

That verse was not "comparing" Jesus Christ to Melchizedek. If anything, what that verse "compares" is priesthoods. These priesthoods are outlined this way:

* In the first place (ie., "HERE", men subject to death receive tithes;

* whereas, in the other instance (ie, "THERE", he "receives" them
-- this "HE" who receives them - WHO is "HE"?
-- what characterizes Him?
-- why does it say that He "receives" (or "receiveth" them?
-- on what basis does it say He receives them?
-- why does it specifically mention that it is because of the fact that. .
. . He LIVES PERPETUALLY?
-- if He "condemned" tithes, why mention that He receives them?
-- if He receives them, where is the "condemned" in that verse?

What would be the meaning of mentioning that He receives tithes if He actually condemned them - when the basis for this is the fact that He lives perpetually?

There is not a single verse in that Hebrews 7 or the entire Bible that condemns tithes - not one! People read their condemnation into a verse that does not remotely hint such a position at all.

ENGINEER G:
THERE IS A BOOK IN THE HOLY BIBLE WHERE YOU CAN NOT SEE THE WORD( GOD ).IF U KNOW THE AWSWER I WILL GIVE U A PRIZE.

The Book of Esther?

My very warm regards.

@huxley,

huxley:
Pilgrim, Can I draw you attention to the very last paragraph of Barbara Forrest's article:

Lol, I thought it was coming to a warm close; but I'm glad to consider it - though I saw this last paragraph when making my observations, for which reason I kept noting that my referrals to her were as quoting Kurtz. All the same:

huxley:
Science, because of its reliance upon methodological naturalism, lends no support to belief in the supernatural. Consequently, philosophical naturalism, because of its own grounding in methodological naturalism, has no room for it either. While for the supernaturalist, this absence may be the chief complaint against both science and methodological naturalism, for the philosophical naturalist, it is the source of the greatest confidence in both.

I know she may have implied the relationship was the other way round, I think this conclusion tells it all. I don't like the word "rely" in this context, because it might give the impression that MN is the sole foundational approach of science.

While respecting your view, huxley, I've noted the critique of that assertion - and quite a lot of thinkers see Barbara's statement there as a bit exaggerated. One example to this point:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=181454.msg3029421#msg3029421 date=1225665369]Many people, including some scientists, misunderstand the foundations of science, believing that science assumes naturalism in some form. As noted above, though, science is based on nature, not on naturalism. To explain this more fully, we must say something about what science is and what it is based on. There is disagreement among philosophers over the exact definition of science, but for our purposes, we needn't go into such depth.
. . .

The assumption of naturalism is another assumption that science gets falsely accused of. Science does not make this assumption. Science does not assume that gods are necessary, but it does not assume they are absent, either. Science does not assume that miracles occurred, but neither does it assume a priori that they never have.
. . .

● All science is based on observations of nature, which leads some scientists to say that science must assume methodological naturalism (e.g. Singham, 2002). But a little investigation shows that even this is an overstatement. The observations that science is based on are natural, but that is simply because the things we call supernatural are not observable, at least not directly.

Supernatural forces can, in theory, have effects that are observable. Science allows for this possibility. In fact, several scientific studies have been done to investigate phenomena that most people would consider supernatural, including the power of prayer (Benor, 1990; Byrd, 1988; Harris et al, 1999; Cha et al, 2001), divination (Randi, 1982; Enright, 1999), prophecy (Witztum et al., 1994; McKay et al., 1999; Perakh, 2000), life after death (Schwartz et al., 2001), ESP (Wiseman et al., 1996), and more. Some organizations actively encourage scientific investigation of the supernatural (JREF, 2002). Science can hardly be called naturalistic when it actively delves into the supernatural.[/quote]It is debatable between naturalists what the position and relationship is between MN and science: that is basically because up until now some scientists are not agreed what exactly is the foundation of science.

huxley:
In fact, the article REPLACING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM is a very interesting read. And the title is also quite interest.

Why would Robert A. Delfino be arguing for replacing MN? In fact, why is he interested in MN at all? Replacing MN from where?

I also considered that article in seeking a balance between ideas - and that was why I offered the citation above on "What Science is Based On". If one does not first get a good picture of that basic question, how could we then proceed with the worldviews that appeal to science?

Anyway, like I said, I just wanted to bring this discussion to a warm close - because nothing has changed a shade from what I have been saying from the onset: from defining Naturalism and its position as a philosophy and a worldview which in no way is to be confused for science.

Regards.

But here is the deal - a citation where someone has highlighted this very important distinction which I’ve been trying to bring to your attention. Admittedly, it is quote a lengthy citation (apologies), but I shall try and summarise or highlight some of its salient points afterwards.


[list]What Science is Based On

Source: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/naturalism.html

Many people, including some scientists, misunderstand the foundations of science, believing that science assumes naturalism in some form. As noted above, though, science is based on nature, not on naturalism. To explain this more fully, we must say something about what science is and what it is based on. There is disagreement among philosophers over the exact definition of science, but for our purposes, we needn't go into such depth. We will cover only the basic philosophical assumptions that science makes and qualities of science that are generally agreed upon.

Some people think that science makes additional assumptions, but it really doesn't. It has been suggested, for example, that science assumes that the laws of nature have been constant throughout time (e.g., Morris, 1994). However, that is not an assumption but a conclusion. Uniformity of natural laws is something that scientists actively test. To date, their tests show that there has been little if any change in the last six billion years, but there is some evidence (still relatively weak) that the fine structure constant has changed slightly before that (Webb et al, 1999).

The assumption of naturalism is another assumption that science gets falsely accused of. Science does not make this assumption. Science does not assume that gods are necessary, but it does not assume they are absent, either. Science does not assume that miracles occurred, but neither does it assume a priori that they never have. (Miracles and science are discussed more below). Science is in the business of testing assumptions, not adding new ones. Individual scientists may believe one way or the other, but their beliefs are not a basis for science.

●  All science is based on observations of nature, which leads some scientists to say that science must assume methodological naturalism (e.g. Singham, 2002). But a little investigation shows that even this is an overstatement. The observations that science is based on are natural, but that is simply because the things we call supernatural are not observable, at least not directly.

Supernatural forces can, in theory, have effects that are observable. Science allows for this possibility. In fact, several scientific studies have been done to investigate phenomena that most people would consider supernatural, including the power of prayer (Benor, 1990; Byrd, 1988; Harris et al, 1999; Cha et al, 2001), divination (Randi, 1982; Enright, 1999), prophecy (Witztum et al., 1994; McKay et al., 1999; Perakh, 2000), life after death (Schwartz et al., 2001), ESP (Wiseman et al., 1996), and more. Some organizations actively encourage scientific investigation of the supernatural (JREF, 2002). Science can hardly be called naturalistic when it actively delves into the supernatural.

If a supernatural phenomenon is found to give repeatable, verifiable results, science will study it. For example, if fairies appear where they can be repeatedly observed, measured, and tested, then they will be valid objects of scientific study. Under such circumstances, though, most people would start calling the phenomenon "natural." The fairies that come to be part of normal shared experience will get labelled "natural" even if we don't yet understand how they fly, make the little sparkling lights, and turn some of the researchers into frogs. As I mentioned earlier, delimiting the supernatural is not easy.
But what about individual miracles? What about so-called supernatural events that can't be studied? Suppose, for example, an apparition of a dead relative appears and speaks to one person on one occasion, and nothing like it ever happens again. Science has a place for such phenomena as well: that place is outside science. But they are outside science because the observations cannot be verified, not because they are supernatural. Unverifiable natural events are also outside of science. When President Harrison signed the statehood proclamations admitting North Dakota and South Dakota to the United States, he purposely did not let anyone see which he signed first. The question of which state was admitted earlier is, in practice, outside of science, because no verifiable observations can be made to answer it. (However, simply being a one-time event does not place something outside of science. The observations must be repeatable, not necessarily the event being studied. Most events have observable consequences that persist long after the event. The origin of the moon, for example, can be studied scientifically because different mechanisms for its origin imply different modern-day properties such as the chemical composition of moon rocks.) To the extent that a reputed supernatural event leaves lasting evidence, the event can be studied scientifically. And again, we find science actively engages in studying such events. However, where verifiable evidence is lacking, science does not apply.

Scientists and philosophers can disagree over other defining features of science, but at least one requirement is clear. For something to qualify as science, the observations must be independently verifiable by others. Perhaps the greatest strength of science is that all its findings are subject to testing, and verifiability of the raw data is foundational to such testing. The effect of this requirement is to remove from scientific consideration subjective impressions and unevidenced phenomena. This does not imply that subjective and unevidenced phenomena aren't important, merely that they cannot be used as the basis for scientific research.

Science has never claimed to be all-encompassing. The few people who say otherwise are usually people who want the good reputation of science to apply to their own ideas outside science. Intelligent design proponents fit in this group (Dembski, 1998b). What these people want is more akin to scientism than to science. They want the reputation of science without having earned it.
The status of Intelligent Design as science has nothing whatsoever to do with its being natural or supernatural. As we have seen, simply being supernatural doesn't disqualify something from scientific study. Intelligent Design is rejected from science simply because there is no verifiable evidence to support it.

Most of Intelligent Design theory is purely subjective, saying little more than "it sure looks designed to me." Only two lines of argument have even a pretense of being scientific. The first, irreducible complexity, is a God-of-the-gaps argument. Certain biological systems, it is claimed, could not have evolved, leaving design as the alternative (Behe, 1996). This argument fails first because a lack of evolution does not imply design, and second because the arguments fail to allow for several biological processes that make the evolution of irreducible complexity not only possible but expected (Muller, 1939). The second supposedly scientific argument for design is specified complexity (Dembski, 1998c). But specified complexity is also a god-of-the-gaps argument. In fact, Dembski's "explanatory filter" for detecting design is really just the god-of-the-gaps expressed as a formal flow-chart; plus, it relies on irreducible complexity for its conclusions.[/list]

If nothing comes across to the reader at all, at least one thing is clear - even among scientists who make the mistake of thinking that nature equates to naturalism, it is at best an assertion from a worldview. Second, many scientists do not rule out the scientific study of the supernatural - some only rule its possibility absolutely out because they "want the good reputation of science to apply to their own ideas outside science". The arguments come to a headway when we note that even among naturalists, they do not hold a concensus on its relationship to science.

Cheers.

@huxley,

Lol, I actually wish indeed that this very interesting discussion had been taken from the very onset to its own thread, so that the important question of this thread (viz: Can A Christian Be Demon-Possessed?) would not have suffered these intrigues.

However, let me try and help this discussion on naturalism smile to a cozy close – if you may. First, because Naturalism is a worldview and people hold their worldviews passionately, I don’t think that anything that may be said further may change your mind. But perhaps it may warm your heart to know that people see things different on the same subject, even among naturalists. And that paradigm or dichotomy is what struck me early enough in trying to speed you on it.

Okay, here we go.

To be quite honest with you, naturalists (IMHO) should be allowed to define and hold their worldviews and doctrines for themselves. In this instance, not all naturalists hold the same shade of that worldview, and they argue broadly between the two basic divides of that worldview. In any case, mine was supposed to have been simply observing your thoughts without attempting to sculpt out what you should or should not hold. It is when this worldview gravitates into publicly affecting issues (such as affecting the practice of science) that it becomes necessary to weigh in and share some pointers.

While observing that Michael Martin (ala Pennock) and Barbara Forrest (after Kurtz) make seeming contradictory opposite statements on MN’s relationship to the scientific method and science, what I failed to consider was that this mishap is not perculiar to naturalists alone. Indeed, some theists (particularly Christian apologists) hold the same reference to the point that they “assume” that all scientists adhere to methodological naturalism (MN) without question. This has been described as a compromise between strange bedfellows – such as the situation in the USA today where many people have combined naturalism and supernaturalism (which I had observed is a worldview, nonetheless).

huxley:
Despite these terminological differences, Scott and Murphy agree on the general meaning of the principle. Scott explains it this way: “[S]cience acts as if the supernatural did not exist.”17 Murphy understands it to mean that “scientific explanations are to be in terms of natural (not supernatural) entities and processes.”18 They also agree that the use of the principle in science is legitimate despite being members of different disciplines (science and philosophy) and different religious persuasions (Scott is an atheist and Murphy is a Christian). To determine if they are correct we need to examine the role that the principle plays in science.

Lol, here is a very fundamental point that often escapes the notice of many reviewers: natural, nature and naturalism are not the same things. Thanks for offering that citation - in due course I shall offer something that highlights how some scientists make this fundamental mistake and then argue that scientists are MNlists.

Cheers.

huxley:
Sorry,  I have just re-read what may have mislead you.  It was a typo on my part.

I meant to say,  "Does it have all the shortcomings of science?  I submit, YES."

No worries - we all make mistakes, and I have them aplenty.

huxley:
I wonder what you understood by this statement?
What I meant is this - of all the various flavours or shades of Naturalism, none but MN informs the Scientific Method. Humanistic Naturalism does not inform SM, Political Naturalism does not SM.

By metaphysical position, I mean a mental disposition arrived at as a result of the consideration of some other foundational data, particularly if the questions being address are questions of existence, being, morals, ethic, etc. For instance HN derives all its foundational data from the scientific method and then formulates a philosophy about how humans ought to live?

It seems to me you're still dwelling on Naturalism as such and only contrasting the contributions or otherwise of various forms of naturalism to science. That said, the one thing to note is that MN relies on (or appeals to) science, and not the other way round. If there be need to further expound on this, it would be my pleasure.

huxley:
2)  Is MN science?   NO

. . .

8-)  Has science got a great and successful track record of uncovering the "truth" about the nature of reality?  YES

9)  Are there any other reliable epistemic methods besides science for revealing the truth? NO

Perhaps, this is better stated now - which in contrast to your previous assertions may be held to be directly different from the above. How? Let me show a few:


(1) Earlier, you argued this: [list]

huxley:
Is there such an approach at the moment with a track record of success as MN? NO.

[/list]

(2) Second, your argued: [list]

huxley:
9)  Are there any other reliable epistemic methods besides science for revealing the truth? NO

[/list]

Between (1) and (2) arguments above quoted, I have the impression that (2) now replaces (1), because it stood as that:

●   is there an approach with a track record of success as MN? (argument #1)

●   is there an approach with a track record of success as science? (argument #2)

Which was it - MN or SCIENCE?

You see, these are the things in yours that I am careful to observe in yours that lead me to the inference that something is just not sticking it in your premise in these arguments. Although you had asked that your recent 10 points be observed as stating your position, it was just one example in yours that needed to be highlighted here so that we know just where the peg is.

Anyhow, in what follows, I shall like to draw this discussion to a warm close, if you may. I appreciate what positions you hold - a preferred worldview and philosophy, no doubt; and one that could be critiqued even by those who do not adhere to them. The only thing so far of substance is that some people (even scientists) make the huge mistake of misconstruing MN for science - and where they say they do not say so, their arguments seem to be seeking to defend their worldview rather than appreciating that science is nobody's prerogative.

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
If you are going to critique my position, I would appreciate it if you critique it vis-a-vis these 10 points above. Unless I deviate from these 10 points (in which case I would advise you), any criticisms outside of this would be a misrepresentation of my position.

To be fair, I think it shows in my rejoinders that I have tried to follow your positions as given previously in your arguments. Where you complained about anything, I consequently pointed them out to you - as in the last one. If I had misread you at any point, the same was highlighted and dealt with. If you were not clear, would that have been any fault of mine?

huxley:
I agree ID is not theistic evolution (TE). My state was badly worded. In fact, I hesitated for several minutes thinking for a better way to express the relationship, but could not think of one.

The real relationship is amorphose. There some ID'ers who also hold onto TE. Michael Behe actually strandles both camps. Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Francisco Ayalla, Simon Conway Morris, Daniel Fairbanks etc are TE and they have nothing but contempt for ID "theory".

Good to observe you see the distinction.

@huxley,

huxley:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=181454.msg3028537#msg3028537 date=1225650836]@huxley,

I sense that no matter how many times I point you to the real essence of MN, you still don't get it.

MN is a worldview and a philosophy - and there are so many worldviews and philosophies of science. But your problem is that you hold the assumption that MN supercedes all other philosophies - and that is where you are wrong. It won't hurt to see this fact, because you have not been able to show indeed that science relies on MN instead of the other way round. Other than trying to take the position of thinkers like Martin and Pennock, you should realise that even among naturalists there are others who see it the other way round!

Where have I said anything like what you have accused be off? Where? Have I even implied that? Show me where I have denied that MN is NOT a wordview and philosophy?

Have I denied that there are many worldviews and philosophies? Have I? Where? Have I even implied that?

Have I argued that MN supercede all other philosophies? Have I implied that? Where?[/quote]I hope everything is alright? My apologies if you misread me; but let me point you to what in yours led me to that inference as highlighted in red:

(1)

huxley:
No according to my diagram, only MN informs the Scientific Method (SM).  The others are essentially metaphysical positions.

(2)

huxley:
MN is a pragmatic philosophy whose aims is to establish a framework and guideline by which good science may be conducted. Does it answer all the shortcomings of science? I submit, YES.

Is there such an approach at the moment with a track record of success as MN? NO.

Again, those are the sort of statements in yours that led me to the thought as highlighted in my quote in your reply.

@huxley,

I sense that no matter how many times I point you to the real essence of MN, you still don't get it.

MN is a worldview and a philosophy - and there are so many worldviews and philosophies of science. But your problem is that you hold the assumption that MN supercedes all other philosophies - and that is where you are wrong. It won't hurt to see this fact, because you have not been able to show indeed that science relies on MN instead of the other way round. Other than trying to take the position of thinkers like Martin and Pennock, you should realise that even among naturalists there are others who see it the other way round!

huxley:
I asked you for any "scientific" work that is currently conducted under non-MN principles and you rightly said Intellegent Design work, sometimes under the theme of Theistic Evolution. Supports of ID have had their day in court in 2005 to defend their views and the were rightly kicked out of court as peddling pseudo-science. In fact, you may want to watch transcripts of the trial. Fascinating. The Catholic scientist, Kenneth Miller, who defends MN, testified against ID'ers.

Lol, Theistic Evolution (IMHO) is not Intelligent Design, dear huxley. They are often closely link, in just the same way that MN and ON are linked. Unfortunately, not many people see the difference and that is why it has been wrongly appended by people who are too uncomfy with the ID. It is because of such disaffection for ID that many uninformed minds misinterprete the positions of scientists as Francis Collins. In my suggesting Theistic Evolution earlier, I noted that there are many other worldviews that appeal to science just as MN does; and that is why MN is not science but merely a philosophical doctrine that appeals to science. When you do not grasp this distinction, you will continue to blur the lines that naturalists have argued either way for the definition of MN. An example:

       On Methdological Naturalism,

       * Michael Martin & Pennock see the case as that science relies on MN

       * Barbara Forrest & Kurtz see the case as that MN relies on science

These are not the same thing, and yet they are all naturalists. Question now is that who is saying what? And if you assert that your take on it is just the best possible of all the others, that is just as dogmatic as the logic that has been critiqued and rejected already!

You argue as if science was a sick and wobbly tool before the emergence of MN. . . as if science did not have a proper foundation before the emergence of MN. I'm sorry to observe that this has been the recurrent decimal in all your rejoinders, and I do not see what case really you have made for it. We both agree that MN is not science, as well that it does not address all the queries of scientific research in the quest for truth and interpretations of world realities. But you still have a hard time seeing MN for what it is - and I think that so many naturalists are hooked on this problem so much so that they are still arguing among themselves on what basically is MN. Of course, people like Barbara Forrest may acknowledge the distinction (ala Kurtz); but that again is contradicted by other naturalists like Martin (after Pennock). It is this dogmatic and circular logic in MN that has led many philosophers of science to critique and reject it without arguing against the scientific method itself.

Gift.

huxley:
I am tired of asking, but I shall try again.  Can you show me philosophers of science and scientist who deny that science is guided by MN principles?  I would really like to know what their views are.

I just gave you a basis why the above is the case. Reminder:

●   Karl Popper (1902- 1994)
     - generally credited with providing a context for major improvements
     in scientific method in the mid-to-late 20th century (note)

     - Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science.
     He rejected it based on his general critique of induction,
     yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures. (note)

    -  Karl Popper famously stated "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory,
     but a metaphysical research program." In the same paper, he continued,
     "And yet, the theory is invaluable. . ." (note)

●   Thomas Kuhn, (1922 - 1966)
     rejected the idea that there exists a single method that applies
     to all science and could account for its progress. In 1962 Kuhn
     published the influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
     which suggested that scientists worked in a series of paradigms,
     and argued that there was little evidence of scientists actually
     following a falsificationist methodology. ([url=http://]note[/url])

It would help to understand what science is, how it developed through history, its relation to philosophy, and the fact that it is not a worldview as is Methodological Naturalism, MN. Because science is not a worldview, it stands as a body of tools developed for investigating and understanding world realities; and it should not be confused for MN - that is the reason why philosophers of science who have made very important contributions have critiqued and rejected its dogmatic logic.

@huxley,

huxley:
No according to my diagram, only MN informs the Scientific Method (SM).  The others are essentially metaphysical positions.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!!   You have it all wrong and sound like you're trying to defend a worldview rather than appealing to the scientific method. You see, huxley, the scientific method has come a long way and has received inputs from various disciplines rather than from just the worldview known as 'methodological naturalism'. That is why you keep getting the wrong projection of thinking that science relies upon MN (ala Michael Martin in quoting Pennock), rather than MN relying on the scientific method (ala Barbara Forrest in quoting Kurtz).

Basically, you cannot use a worldview to defend science, because science is not a worldview that needs defending: it is a tool of investigating the realities of our world and it has its limitations and cannot be used to explain everything. If on the other hand you keep making the mistake of assuming that methodological naturalism is the only legitimate worldview there is and therefore is the only legitimate worldview that shapes the scientific method, you truly have it wrong, huxley.

It is this type of reasoning you're advancing that probably led other thinkers to reject the dogmatic logic of MN - it is not only Dr. Craig and Alvin Plantiga that have critiqued MN, but other philosophers of science have done so and continue to do so: Karl Popper being another. Notice that these people were not critiquing the scientific method - rather, they were critiquing methodological naturalism; and that is why they ask questions such as -

●   Is it (methodological naturalism) science?

●   Is it (methodological naturalism) logic?

These thinkers are not critiquing the scientific method at all, huxley - because they know that the scientific method is quite a well-developed body of methodology in the quest for truth in explaining world realities.

It is remarkable that there are philosophers of science, like Karl Popper, who have categorically rejected methodological naturalism on the basis of its rigid and circular logic. Yet, like some other notable philosophers, Popper is "generally credited with providing a context for major improvements in scientific method in the mid-to-late 20th century." (Wikipedia). Others who were recognized as important figures through the history of the scientific method include Descartes, Aristotle (which some have argued as being the father of modern scientific method), and Galileo (others also argue that he indeed should be recognized as the father of the scientific method).

Others (like Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos) have also made very important contributions to the development of the scientific method. But the notable contrast is that scholars like Kuhn critiqued Popper on a very important element: he "rejected the idea that there exists a single method that applies to all science and could account for its progress".

That critique of Kuhn is very important here, huxley - and should help you see the fallacy of your statement: [list]

huxley:
No according to my diagram, only MN informs the Scientific Method (SM).

[/list]

Lol, please try and study more about this subject and especially the works of those who have made very important contributions to the development of the scientific method - they have never critiqued the scientific method itself; but rather, they have both critiqued and rejected the dogmatic logic of methodological naturalism (MN). This is why it is a serious fallacy to assert that all "good" scientists follow the MN - no they don't. The MN is a worldview that continues to be critiqued and rejected by reknowned philosphers of science.

However, hadēs (αiδης, commonly translated as ‘hell’ in our English Bibles) should not be confused for mnēmeion (μνημειον – tr. as grave, tomb, or sepulchre).

The nature and experiences between these two spheres are not pointing to the same things. The difference is this:

● the body is buried in the grave (mnēmeion)

● but the spirit/soul leaves the body and goes on to hadēs (αiδης

Death is defined as ‘the body without the spirit’ (James 2:26). Long before that, Eccl. 12:7 noted that man’s body is dust that returns to earth while the spirit returns to God who gave it. What all these point to is that man’s spirit and soul survive beyond the grave – and that is what is shown in Luke 16.

In Luke 16, both Lazarus and the rich man died and were buried (v. 22); but the experiences after death gives us the understanding that their incorpreal parts (spirit and soul) survived the grave and were very conscious to engage in some activity of sorts – as in the case of the rich man in verse 23 & 24:

● in hell (hadēs) he lift up his eyes
● he was in torments
● he saw Abraham afar off
● he cried and said

Dear Perrito4u, think on these things and maybe they will then help you reconsider what you argue about hell - for the Bible demonstrates that Hell is not the grave.

@Perrito4u,

Perrito4u:
Did Jesus go to paradise "Today", meaning the same day? If Yes, then what bible reference do you have to support that? So we can understand what Jesus really meant since we not using any commas. They were added in translation.

Hi there. I would like to say that there's good sense in what Chrisbenogor and Nimshi have pointed out earlier. It was not my intention to weigh in at this point, but having waited for your answer to my request and found none, it might be best to throw in a few here.

If you maintain that sheol = grave = hell, there would definitely be problems with holding that view. I don’t think the Biblical texts maintain such a position – and that was why I had asked about Luke 16:23 on the pointer to Hadēs (Greek Ἅιδης, Aidēs, Āidēs, Haidēs).

The word Hadēs (or Haidēs) should not be confused for ‘grave’. The NT uses a different word in reference to our ‘common’ grave:

[list]Grave (Greek μνημειον – mnēmeion), or Graves (μνημα – mnēma)

●   John 11:17 (KJV) – ‘Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave (mnēmeio) four days already.’

●   John 11:38 (KJV) – ‘Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave (mnēmeio). It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.’

●   Rev. 11:9 – ‘And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves (mnēma).’

●   Matt. 27:52-53 (KJV) – ‘And the graves (mnēma) were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves (mnēma) after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.’[/list]

The words ‘grave/graves’ occur in those verses in many English translations and versions in agreement with the KJV. The word ‘grave’ also answers to ‘sepulchre’ as in Acts 13:29 in the KJV – ‘And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre (mnēmeion)’. In this verse, other translations use various words such as:

[list]●   Tomb
Amplified [AMP]
Analytical Literal Translation [ALT]
American Standard Version [ASV]
Contemporary English Version [CEV]
English Standard Version [ESV]
English Majority Text Version [EMTV]
Gods WORD [GW]
Holman Christian Standard Bible [HCSB]
International Standard Version [ISV]
Literal Translation [LITV]
New American Standard Bible [NASB]
New Century Version [NCV]
New English Translation [NET]
New International Version [NIV]
New King James Versions [NKJV]
New Living Translation [NLT]
Revised Version [RV]
Weymouth NT [WyNT]
Young’s Literal Translation [YLT]

●   Sepulchre
Darby
Douay Rheims Bible [DRB]
Geneva
James Murdock NT [JMNT]
Webster

●   Grave
Wycliffe New Testament [WNT][/list]

There’s no confusing these terms, for we can see that the ‘tomb’ in Matt.27:60 (KJV) answers to the ‘sepulchre’ in Luke 23:52 (KJV).