₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
@pilgirm.1
On the contrary you are the one who keeps dancing around potent issues which we bring up only to state weak scriptures such as Matthew 23:23 to support tithing.

No wahala. Your excuses are not to be mistaken for answers to the questions I asked and which still remain unanswered. As JJYOU has said:

JJYOU:
@ pilgrims.1 seriously dear sister. i think you have done al you need to do on this matter. stop wasting your precious time on this matter. let them save their ,omey. Jesus is coming soon.

I had thought some more substance would emerge from your persuasions, KunleOshob. . but finding none, may I gracefully take a leave and prepare my heart for my next tithes!

JJYOU:
so you knew you were telling fibs against an old man?

Gamine, no mind this bobo o jare!
He's bent on putting you on a guilt trip! Hehe. .

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Ok I no wan talk plenty before but now una wan open my nyash.
First of all pilgrim your analysis of that paul's statement is wrong.

Grateful to be humbled by that observation.

Chrisbenogor:
The first part of the statement says "it is good to be unmarried" the second part says "but it is better to be married than to burn with desire". Look carefully the "better" was a comparison between between burning with desire and being married, not with the first part of the sentence at all.

I understand all that, pointed it out, and it is the same thing I have highlighted once again in noting that even verse 38 is not a stand-alone verse. People read from verse 32 down to 37 and then when they come to verse 38, they immediately severe all connections with the preceding verses and treat it like it appears from nowhere and takes the canopy above all else!

Chrisbenogor:
Huxley's analogy was super and to the point this is simple syntax, in the grander scheme of things the statement would mean it would be better than burning with desire, not better than being celibate.

I'm sure you know what it means to weigh a matter in "the grander scheme of things"? This seems like a smooth vibe to claim a syntax in one breath and at that same instance deplore the same syntax in the "grander scheme" of things. I do not mind if you see that verse as a stand-alone verse to arrive at that inference - but to me it would not make any sense to claim it is a "super" by disconnecting it from all other verses while narrowing it down to just one dot! That is not syntax in the "grander scheme", it is rather pre[/b]text under a smooth vibe.

Chrisbenogor:
Pilgrim you twisted those words there and you of all people are taking things out of context.

Thank you again sir - if I did, you misled your ideas on a syntax you already punctured in the "[b]grand scheme of things". If you come back and wipe that idea out of your quote, then I can applaud your musings. As long as you assume a "grand scheme" while hooting for a narrow slant, I'm sorry sir, that would be hard to digest.

Chrisbenogor:
I know you will by instinct want to click on reply and fire away a defence but lets bring in a third party or better still let the statement be verified by an external source, no amount of bending or twisting would change it.

They can bring in a any number of party desired - I'm waiting for those who would "fire away" at making a "grand scheme" as narrow as you applauded and yet be unable to show how you have acknowledged the other verses in this "granbd scheme".

Chrisbenogor:
Huxley was right with his analogy, totally spot on.

No wahala naw. . . we go see as time progresses.

Chrisbenogor:
Your defence of meat and sex does not hold water it is the syntax of the sentence in this particular case we are talking about.

Lol, Chris. . . this is the sort of thing that makes me laugh at people sometimes.

Please for heaven's sake, go back and read slowly - was it pilgrim.1 that made the defence or analogy of "meat"? Did I introduce that at all?

What was my terse reply to huxley's use of the "meat"? Did I not simply and clearly say that it does not apply to this matter? See it again:

["That analogy does not fit into this matter about sex and marriage -
what is the correlation? How do you delineate sexual matters
along the lines of a doctor's reco to eat lean meat?"]

Phew! How come you are tagging me with a defence of "meat" from huxley that was not in my case? I knew that you guys would run into a huge problem with that; and now that you find it miserly, why are you inferring that pilgrim.1 tried to "defend" what she never introduce in the first place? Wetin dey happen, Chris?

Chrisbenogor:
Now about confusing, the tenets of biblical sex does not fit into the reality of what we have today. But I do not want us to muddle issues up first respond to this first.

I don respond. It is a worrisome trend that people just dey boil over this matter O. . that is why since April last year, I said this issue is enigmatic!!

Enjoy.

@May kelly,

May kelly:
Sex: An Enigmatic Subject?

I want to believe that the moderator did not see this topic to trash it to the romance thread.

Lol, it pervades all areas of human endeavour - politics, romance, tech, . . religion. Everyone has a perspective on the subject, and this one is about the way people view the subject from a spiritual point.

@huxley,

huxley:
Pardon me, these are just ad hoc, incoherent  and incomprehensible comments.  You make comments like "  . . you not not take this in isolation . . . "   But you do not show how one relates to the other.  I am sure you can do better.

Lol, were you banging your head on your keyboard or what? I don't remember where I said "you not not take this in isolation" - was that how you demonstrate your incohenrence? Okay, just teasing ya!

Anyway, you still seem bent on going round in circles at this matter; and I'll just humour you a lil more. No offence, but huxley, take it slowly and then see the point.

Let's say your analogy of lean meat comes in from the doc. The point is: would the doc's prescription be standing alone or in relation to something? Eating lean mean is by no means the big picture - because that does not apply to everybody, does it? That is precisely the point you raised and what you have been arguing so far in consequence is the direct opposite of your own summisings!

The eating of lean meat is not the more preferred for others who do not need that recommendation! It does not apply to every person who eats meat! If someone is better off eating lean meat, it does not mean therefore that eating lean meat is the better choice for everyone!

This was why I have again and again referred to verse 35 when reading verse 38 - surely that is not hard to see, is it? It becomes hard for you to see it when you ignore the preceding verse and treat verse 38 as a stand-alone verse! Which is not my worry. . . I'm just amused that you who spoke of "syntax" are the first to break that same rule!

What does verse 35 point to any differently from what I have highlighted earlier? If you have a problem with that, I am sorry it is not my worry - people naturally have a problem with what they like to ignore; and this is no different. But I had hoped you would help yourself and not be ignoring that verse.

huxley:
BY the way,   who are people intending to server God as the primary focus of their lives?   Does this not describe every  Christian?   Does a Christian have anything else besides serving God as their main concern?

Ignore the preceding verses again, not so? Dear huxley, all Christians are called to serve the Lord; but not all Christians are called to serve Him in the same capacity. To make this point clear to you, please read 1 Corinthians 12:29-30. As for those addressed in ch. 7:37, it does distinguishes the people there instead of applying that references to all Christians, does it not?

huxley:
Was these meant to be Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops,  Saints,  the laity, the ordinary man/woman?  Who really is Paul addressing here.

Read verse 37.

huxley:
This is simply plain language.  How can there be any other meaning than the plain meaning that oozes out from it?

The language is plain enough, but I don't see how it applies the very same thing to every Christian, not when you read verse 37 - unless you want us to no longer see the plainness in that verse, yes?

huxley:
Verses 32 & 33 say ,  an unmarried man is concerned about how he can please the Lord  BUT a married man is concerned about the affairs of the world - about pleasing his wife.

Verse 34, exactly the same, but this time the subject is about unmarried woman (virgin).

Verse 35 - explains why they need to remain unmarried,  so that their undivided attention may be focused to the Lord.

Verse 36,  But those who cannot control themselves should get married

Verse 37,  Those who can control themselves and have made up their mind to NOT marry are doing the RIGHT thing.

Why is it that you are not applying every thing to every group of persons there? Why the constant recourse to "those who" and another "those who"? Why the distinction if they are all the same?

huxley:
Verse 38.  This is like a synopsis to the foregoing verses.  It starts with the conclusive conjunction expression "So then . . .".  It basically summaries and ties together the preceeding verses in the following way -  to get married is good, BUT to remain unmarried is EVEN BETTER.

To what end was it "better" to remain married? This is the point that you keep ignoring. You sound like it is to be treated like a stand-alone verse and yet you purr over the preceding verses and apply the distinction of "those who" as different from "those who". . !! I wonder why the distinction you apply and then try to lump them all in one bracket on a vacant plank! There is a reason why Paul made the reference to those in verse 38 - that verse is not a vacant or stand-alone verse!

huxley:
Is this not simple plain English?   Why are you ambiguating the meaning with some tawdry and tortuous bending of the text

Thanks, such lazy statements do not worry me in the least. If you can demonstrate that the verse 38 stands alone, then I could see your point. ignoring its connection and hooting for "plain English" does not lend substance to what you assume.

Cheers.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
I really don't know what you are trying to infer by perpetually refering to Melchizedek whose singular and mystrious appearance in the bible is only his meeting with Abaraham in genesis which was refered to in Hebrew.

I'm not trying to infer anything than what you read in that verse. Was that question too hard to answer?

You see, I have spent time looking at most of the arguments from tithe-opposers: some of them sound good; others are just way over the top! Also same could be said about some who tithe - some good, others do not even know why they do so. However, while my views are not final and binding on anyone, I have shared them simply, drawn my persausions clearly from the Word by showing that my persausions are not predicated upon the Levitical system! WHY is that too difficult for you guys to understand and always seek to draw attention back to the same Levitical system every single time?!?

My views have always been consistent - you can go and check them out. There are clear pointers for reasons why I'm persuaded to tithe; and I've shared them. Questions and criticisms have been proffered and I have never shied away from any one of those questions - my answers were no less drawn from Scripture. However, even when you guys critiqued my persuasions, you could not do so from Scripture (minus your own case where you made an attempt), and others were just being dismissive. No worries - but when I asked questions about Abraham and Melchizedek, all I have seen so far are excuses, whinging, churching, and outright condemnation from non-tithers. . . some referring to it as "pagan", others too miffed that they declared it was a "scandal" - even some were so magnanimous to say tithers are sinning and going down the road to HELL. I know I've mentioned these highlights often - and I keep mentioning them for as long as those guys remain unrepentant of their excuses in dissing Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek.

If you had no answers, I can well bear with you - but that would only go down as testimony that you don't even know what you're arguing and have been making the same mistake churcning out expressly the same baseless arguments of those who see only the Levitical priesthood!

KunleOshob:
Are you saying that melchizedek is now your saviour or your intermediary to God

Another fausse patte - you know already that I never once made Melchizedek my Saviour. Besides, I have said openly that tithes does not save or justify anybody, whether in the OT or NT - and tithes does not send anybody to HELL!! Because people cannot sit down to reason, that is why they make these wild statements to the extreme as if I ever made such an inference to make Melchizedek my Saviour! Haba!! You guys never cease to amaze me with your desperations! It's all good - when people have no answers for what they shout most, the desperation sets in!

KunleOshob:
It still remains very Glaringly clear that tithing was never preached by paul or any of the apostles, Jesus christ never preached it and it was never part of the "great commision".

More noise - did I ever make tithing a requirement of the great commission? You don dey spin out of control again. . wetin dey bite you? That excuse of Jesus never "preached it" is a retire excuse that has been wasted already - please try something else and don't recycle stale news (Matthew 23:23). This frantic display sounds like those who go to the extreme to say that tithes were not mentioned even once in the NT - and yet they say so with a Ph.D!

Dear Kunle bros, I asked you a simple question - I came back to read only excuses from you.

No worries. I have asked another one earlier: is it not true that most of the doctrines in our Christian faith are defined by the same Law of Moses (which you called "dead and buried"? And that one just went past with a glib quote of the whole of Galatians 3 (or 5?).

Yet another similar question: what do you and your folks make of Romans 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"?

Altogether, there are about 23 nuggets of questions which I have offered non-tithers. . while you tried to make some attempts (as well TV01 did), I did not see where you guys actually answered those questions. Every single questions you proffered, I have answered. . and still open to more queries and critiques, no shakings! Wetin do una wey body dey bite you so? Why is it so difficult to answer simple questions and yet so easy to shout the loudest about condemning tithes?

Bros, tithes is not by force - tithers are not asking a dime from the pockets of non-tithers. You no wan tithe? Fine - nobody will arrest you or come knocking on your conscience!

Blessings.

@huxley,

huxley:
I am sure we are agreed that the meaning of documents, text, etc, come from the words within it. The words used by Paul, if they follow the rules of the grammar and syntax of language, should convey a certain meaning. I used the analogy because, if words are important, they should convey exactly the same meaning.

Even when you used another analogy, you have still failed to grasped the gist of that passage. You're isolating verses to help the idea that celibacy was (in Paul's mind) far superior to marriage - which if we take care to examine, is as far from the real case as can possibly be.

Why so? Because in the first instance, you don't seem to be able to grasp that 1 Corinthians 7:38 is not a stand-alone verse - rather, it pertains to those who have their hearts set on service in the Christian ministry. This is why I referred you to verse 35 inclusive so you get the simple picture there -

[38]And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you,
but for that which is comely,
and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

[36]But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,
if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will,
he sinneth not: let them marry.

[37]Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity,
but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will
keep his virgin, doeth well.

[38]So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well;
but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

The point should be clear even to a casual reader. You don't draw a conclusion by taking a "syntax" in isolation - I hope you know that already? In which case, when you look acrefully at verse 38 which begins with "so then", it throws your mind back to the previous verses, not so?

Now, what are the previous verses saying - that celibacy overall is more preferred to marriage? Nope - because that would mean that the one who interpretes them that way just wants to deliberately ignore certain verses, especially v. 37. Reading from verse 35, it is clear that Paul enters into the matter of Christian service ("that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction". He does not arrive suddenly at verse 38 while largely ignoring the previous statements. I hope you get the matter sorted now?

But, of course, you may not - and that would be understandable on the premise that you would largely ignoring verses 35 and 37 and arriving at an inference drawn in isolation on verse 38. Not only so, you would ignore also such references as Hebrews 13:4. In this latter case, does he present celibacy as superior to marriage?

The simple thing here is that people often take verse 38 of 1 Cor. 7 in isolation and then promote the idea that such and that is superior to the other - whereas that is not the overall picture. There was a reason for 38, and it is not a stand-alone verse.

Hmm, na wah.

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
Again my dear you failed to show any christian directive or injuction that encourages or support tithing.

Lol, please attend to my simple question on Hebrews 7:8 and then we shall move forward. I may have missed it, so please correct me.

KunleOshob:
If it is not about money or % then stop calling it tithes, we know how the mordern day church defines tithes, we also know how the bible defined it. I think you and Pilgrim.1 are trying to introduce a new definition to tithes and that is the cause of this elongated debate.

Can you please define it the narrow way you have always done and let us see again whether you adulators agree with you?  I will take a loooooong break in your case and then when you do so, I shall come back and give you more than 3 dozens of quotes from your own adulators to see how you would react. Shalom.

JJYOU:
illicit sez is a destiny robber.

I like that sooooooo much. Could you allow me "steal" that one and retain in my diary? Thank you.

@huxley,

huxley:
Ok, let us analyse these verses

Let me take a similar example:


It is good for you to be vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, then you should eat only lean meat.

If your doctor were to say that to you, what impression would that leave in your mind? Would the doctor be defining a hierarchy of options? Does it suggest that the two options are on a par? From the above statement, which is the preferred state? I submit that it is:

1) Vegetarian
2) Only lean meat

Do you agree with this assessment? If not, why?

That analogy does not fit into this matter about sex and marriage - what is the correlation? How do you delineate sexual matters along the lines of a doctor's reco to eat lean meat?

huxley:
Now, let us look at the verse from the bible;

1 Cor 7:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Why did Paul use the word "But" in these verses? If Paul had meant marriage to be a superior state, how could he have said this:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is better (or best) for them to get married, unlike me.

Actually, if you take a closer look, you will find that Paul only said it was "good" (not "better or best" to be unmarried. I know some who think that "better of best" is what was used in that verse, but it does not appear so in Greek.

huxley:
But he did not say that. He clearly puts celibacy in a higher place than marriage. But if you cannot control yourself, should you consider marriage.

Nope - you need to read it again as I offered earlier. Taking the verses in isolation will confuse the matter for you; but the moment in read them in their connection with other verses, you see the big picture says a different thing from your assumptions.

huxley:
Take a look at this phrase, which I think you misinterpreted;

for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

What is Paul comparing in the above phrase? I submit, it is marriage and passion (or to put is simply, sexual desire) resulting from celibacy. He is clearly NOT comparing marriage and celibacy. He is comparing marriage and uncontrollable sexual desire.

Granted - did you miss verse 38 also?

huxley:
So for those who have no problems with controlling their sexual desire, celibacy is a preferred state.

You see your problem? Now the simple question is this: why would he have applied it to "those who have no problem" instead of everyone? You who see a comparison here have failed to take the same rule of thumb as you have tried to make out in the case for verses 8-9. Clearly, paul was not making a hierarchical choice between marriage and celibacy on a plank - he applied them to specific cases, rather than to a general rule of thumb!

huxley:
How could Paul have said this if this phrase was meant to compare marriage and celibacy?

He did not, and your problem was that you are the one making this comparison for yourself. Did Paul not acknowledge clearly that cleibacy was not something that applied to everyone (verse 7)? Look again at what you even admitted in bold:

huxley:
for it is [b]better to marry than to be celibate (or remain unmarried).[/b]

huxley:
But if he had said this in the context of verse 8, it would had rendered the entire verses non-sensical,

Glad you could see that once you ignore the context, you render your own argument nonsensical. It always pays to read and take in the whole picture instead of merely throwing around verses here and there. On closer scrutiny, the inference you draw from such would simply leave more questions than answers in your submissions.

Regards.

Chrisbenogor:
Personally I think the way the bible explains sex only makes it all the more confusing why because again one has to bend the bible beliefs to meet with today's need.

No one's going to bend anything to fit into the present. I have never come across anyone who honestly testifies that Biblical tenets on sex are confusing - look well: they may be making such claims where something in their lives is disturbing them.

Because the original author may not have been you (KunleOshob), it would be inappropriate to quote you directly. But a few comments:

Thankfully, Jewish theologians know better than their Christian counterparts. They are well aware that only Levites have the right to receive tithe of the people. After all, the Jewish leaders have the Old Testament as their Scripture and that’s what it commands.

That simply shows the premise of that persuasion.

(a) The Jewish leaders do not possess the New Testament and neither could they partake of the blessings of the new covenant:

          Hebrews 13:10
          We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

(b) For anyone to follow the Levitical priesthood even today, they would first have to prepare themselves to do two basic things:

          ● they would first have to be circumcised:

          "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
            that he is a debtor to do the whole law."
            --  (Galatians 5:3)


          ● they would have to be present at Jerusalem:

          "Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose
            to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that
           I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices,
           your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand,
           and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD"
           --  (Deuteronomy 12:11)

Because people often address tithes only as a matter of the Levitical priesthood, they constantly fail to see anything else. I do not fault the rabbi's convictions - but we must understand that the rabbi's persuasion is not what defines the Christian testimony! the rabbi's persuasion does not define the Melchizedek priesthood! He may speak about the Levitical matters - but those of us who are persuaded to tithe are not in competition with the Levites over this matter! as Paul says:

            Hebrews 13:10 -
            "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle."

If you keep setting all your hopes on the Levitical tabernacle and always use that as an excuse against tithe, you will constantly miss the issue for miles on end!  You need to ask yourself if the rabbi keeps the same Law - does he? Could he boast that he actually obeys the law of the old covenant - seeing that he is outside of Jerusalem where the shekina glory is no longer there today?

Please, think carefully before you continue to argue with "delight" against this matter.

Cheers.

KunleOshob:
Another interesting Factual article someone sent to me on tithes, very thought provoking


Jews Do Not Tithe Today

Someone also sent it to me by email: http://www.askelm.com/tithing/thi003.htm  

Hi @sleekmag,

Thank you for your comments - and even in previous pages where you shared, I have truly been blessed (not because you also favour tithes as a Christian, but rather because many friends offline constantly reference the way you shared your views).

sleekymag:
@ Pilgrim.1,
I wonder if its any use explaining to huxley (a self-professed atheist on nairaland) the whole tithing issue. His mission here is not get clarified on the issue of tithing either by supporting it or not supporting it, but to probably laugh at it.

Actually, I knew from the very onset that he was least interested in this subject or any other. Typically, most atheists (not all of them that I know) make a career of ridiculing the Christian faith. When they talk about "religion", they don't sincerely mean that - rather, they mean "Christianity". So, it does not surprise anyone that all their efforts are often geared against Christianity even when they claim to be fighting "religion".

And it was because of his efforts to deflect this discussions with retired arguments that I took the time to post a few pointers (especially for the sake of those friends offline who pressed me to defend my position against Russell Kelly's and John Keefe's arguments - reposted earlier by huxley).

As anyone can see now, is it not plain that even those who argue long and hard against tithes often have no clue what they are saying? As in the case of John Keefe, how could such a man argue against tithes by claiming that "Jesus is now a priest of two systems"?!? The moment I pointed that out to my friends offline, I never saw any email from them even up until now! None of them have returned to counter-argue anything.

My point? Simply this: that not every one (on both sides of the divide) actually has a good grasp of what they argue (and that includes me, though learning everyday). I don't know it all - have never known it all; and even so, I had once argued against tithing. . . until my eyes were opened that indeed I was merely swallowing the arguments of others and not actually allowing the Word to stir my own convictions.

The moment I saw this, I tread carefully as to whose persuasions I was hooting for. It then dawned on me that: (a) some tithers actually have no good grasp about their persuasions - and that is why antagonists will always succeed to waste their persuasions; and (b) most antagonists against tithes actually have no Biblical substance to their own arguments either! Why were these fellows making the same mistake every time? Because they were always setting their eyes every single time on the Levitical priesthood! Does anyone now wonder that they just don't have any answers to the case of Melchizedek's priesthood in Hebrews 7:8?!? Instead of helping their readers, such anatagonists scuttle round that verse. .  some even calling it a "scandal" or "pagan rites" - and you won't find anyone of them calmly and responsibly addressing that matter. The best you can get from them are the tired, old, and retired exculpations that are now a bore!

It's my persuasion that the moment these guys calmly address that verse over and above all their excuses, then they will see how sadly mistaken they have been in dissing Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek! May God make it so for them.

Shalom.

KunleOshob:
I wonder why my darling Pilgrim.1 finds it soooo difficult to succumb to obviously superior arguments when her position is being overwhelmingly faulted

'Darling' Kunle. . lovable brother, for thy sake pilgrim.1 succumbs. Can we hug now?

Hi @huxley,

huxley:
What is more enigmatic about the religious view of sex is the hierarchical attitudes most religion advocate, though the rarely encourage this extremes.

Lol, thanks for your inputs; but why is it that this subject of sex has to be a question that kicks off with your disaffection for "religion"? How is it that you are too driven against this matter that you no longer can hold any rational thought until you have kicked off your commentary against religion? My dear huxley, there's more to life than fighting people's convictions, and always taking that attitude does not come off as a healthy approach in discussions (which incidentally I'm not the only who has noted this) . Anyway, your call.

huxley:
Firstly, they claim that the purest form of existence is a sexless existence.

"They" don't make any such claim - you're making that claim on a fausse braie sentiment and trying to hang it on "them".

huxley:
Paul so much as says that it is better for people not to marry

1 Corinthians 7:9 - "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

huxley:
and prefers celibacy to marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:7 - "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." Paul did not make a choice for anyone, and he goes so far as to acknowledge that each person has their own inclination granted them. He does not place his own inclination as superior over any other person's.

huxley:
But if you cannot deal with the temptations of the flesh, then go ahead and get married [and have as much sex as you want]

.

Please contain your hubris, huxley. I hope that is not too hard to ask? I do hope for simplicity you cannot be too assuming as to represent the parenthesis as part of Paul's thoughts.

huxley:
Second, it tries to define what forms of sex are acceptable, define the missionary sex between man and woman as the only acceptable form, and eschewing sex between consenting adults of the same sex.

I am so sorry for folks like you - you just cannot contain yourself even on simple matters that you have to go this length to misrepresent people's views? Haa! I see your type of "rationality".

huxley:
Thirdly, some religions see sex as only meant for procreation, frowning on sex for pleasure.

Good that you say "some religions", not Biblical Christianity.

huxley:
In a Pauline hierarchy of sexual virtue, this is how people would be ranged, top to bottom, with top being the best and ideal;

1) Virgin
2) Virgin and celibate
3) Virgin and Married
4) Married and not virgin

Wrong. Plain wrong. Paul did not rank them that way, or he would have had something else to say instead of this: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. " (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

Just in case you missed it:

(a) "good" if you remain single (verse 8 )

(b) "better" if you get married (verse 9)

Then this: "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).

But what about verse 38 of 1 Corinthians 7? Does it say that it is "better" that a person remains unmarried? Here - "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better." So many people read this verse in isolation and then come to the simplistic idea that marriage is inferior to being unmarried. Nope - Paul made that statement in reference to those who were thinking of serving the Lord as the main focus of their lives (read it from verse 35). If others did not have such deep occupations in their hearts and still want to attend upon ministry, it would be a hard life for them. This is the kind of warning the Bible gives for those who allow themselves to become celibate by religious others - because when they cannot contain themselves, they would fall into a sad situation of sexual abuse.

huxley:
The majority of adult Christians are in category (4), the bottom of the ladder.

And what is sooooo wrong with being married as a Christian?

huxley:
Any other form of sexual union would be classed as aberrant and sinful

Any other form of sexual union which celebrates sin is sinful indeed.

Cheers.

@Chrisbenogor,

I quite disagree with you about my "stretching" what Paul meant. This is why I only asked people to go through my posts and follow through with this simple outline as to what they disgaree with, and then discuss them in full. If the scriptures I shared with their precise meanings are not what we find in the Bible, it would be my pleasure for whoever disagrees to go through them and show us just what the same texts actually teach.

On the whole, you will not find any one man leading a church in apostolic times. Leadership was not a men-only phenomena in Scripture: rather, it was a joint exercise with both men and women fulfilling their godly roles in the local churches. Nor would you find any one woman leading any church in apostolic times.

And suppression of women? That has been the traditional thought among many people, because what we read with our natural inclinations comes across as if there was a suppression of women in the Body of Christ. The example of such denominations as the Church of God Mission is not what we find in Scripture - and I have stated that clearly in my previous entries. Again, the idea of a one-man led ministry called a "church" is not taught in Scripture either.

All the same, I appreciate your observations. Cheers.

Melchizedek was a priest who blessed two systems in Abraham. The law (he took a tithe) and grace (communion bread and wine, Genesis 14:18). Jesus is now a priest of two systems: the church (Gentile centered, now) and the temple system (Jewish centered, after the rapture) in the New Jerusalem Rev. 21:9-27.

Was Jesus Melchizedek?

In Genesis 14:17-23 we have the first appearance of Melchizedek.

"And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:"

It says that he is a king, and priest of God. In verses 18- 20 it says that Abraham "gave him a 10th of all" (type and shadow of tithing) and received "bread and wine" (type and shadow of communion). Melchizedek recognized and blessed both the law and promise (grace) represented in Abraham.

@huxley,

This is a very big mistake that the author (John Keefe, DC) above was making.

(1) Melchizedek was not blessing "two systems" - and anyone who simply opens his or her Bible would see it clear as day! Genesis 14:19 shows that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, and there is no interpolation there to warrant the idea that the blessing was rather to a "system" - this is how religion creeps in through the back door, and it is remarkable that the people who are arguing the loudest against "religion" in Christianity are the same ones who are building its foundations!

(2) The bread and wine that Melchizedek brought to Abraham does not speak about "communion" of grace in Christ - it does not foreshadow it, does not point to it, and it does not give us any warrant to take that view. Back then, a simple presentation of bread and wine was a familiar symbol of fellowship and not the "communion" of grace in Christ.

(3) To misconstrue the bread and wine in that instance as "communion bread and wine" is to confuse the whole essence of that passage, because it would then mean that the author was presenting Melchizedek as Jesus Christ (even though he disavows that very thing)! Only Christ Himself could actually present the "communion bread and wine" in theophany; and even at that time the typology of the very basis for that communion (the death and resurrection of Christ) has not been established there!



(4) Lastly, please people, never ever ever make the mistake of arguing against tithes and at the same time presenting the Lord Jesus as a priest of two systems! That is such a denigration of Christ's glory as High Priest of only one thing before our Father - and that is: the new covenant!

If Christ was to be priest of two systems, it means He would be priest of the Jewish system and the new covenant (which is actually what our author has declared - please see above highlight in quote where he said: "Jesus is now a priest of two systems: "! As such, it would require the Lord Jesus to be here on earth to manage the earthly priesthood as well - which is categorcally refuted in Hebrews 8:4 - "For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law."

That being the case, since Christ is in heaven, He could be priest of only ONE priesthood - the Melchizedek priesthood! What this means is that Jesus could not be priest of the Jewish system at all - because the Jewish system is said to be "that which decayeth and waxeth old" and is "ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).  How could Jesus be priest of that kind of system?!?

More over, referring to the basis of our new covenant, the Bible clearly says: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." (Hebrews 13:10).


People, you see now why I said that when anatagonists of tithes try to argue their case every single time on the Law, they come off confused than when they started! This is one reason why I categorically said that I'm not inclined to set my thoughts on commentaries - because some of these commentaries are quite misleading!!! Even though they argue against tithes, how could these same men be postulating that Jesus is a priest of TWO systems - and we should just swallow it because they argue against tithes with long theses?!? Just about the same retired arguments I found in Russell Kelly's 800 pages book arguing irrationally just every excuse against tithes - and because he holds a Ph.D people assume that he knew what he was saying?

May God help us examine matters with a sharp taste and vision and not fall victims of needless arguments.

Blessings to all.

@huxley,

huxley:
Am sorry if my poorly structured sentence caused you to misinterpret what I meant. I was not asking for how you support your tithing practices financially. I was asking how you support it biblically, which you have amply provided.

My deepest apologies there - indeed I misread you.

huxley:
Like I said, I could not care less. I was only after how it could be defended (supported) biblically.

Okay, if you could care less we wonder why the sudden interest that you had to repost articles that have already been posted earlier and which arguments did not yield any significant fruit? Why so? Because most of these authors have been basing all their arguments mainly on the Levitical priesthood and missed the one thing Hebrews 7 mentions in the case of Abraham and Melchizedek! That was why I kept asking over and over again: under what LAW or COMMAND did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek? Only a few careful readers have noted that it had nothing to do with such Law or Commandment, but simply on the basis of FAITH.

That is the one thing ("FAITH" in Abraham's case that those authors missed - and we cannot perpetuate the mistake of the previous generation and carry them into our thinking today. Not that they have not been of help in any way (most of them still have my deepest respects to this very day) - but I think it does not cost so much if people come forth and honestly tackle issues regardless the controversy it may stir. This is why I often clear shy of sticking my mind on commentaries (although so many commentaries are quite helpful).

huxley:
By the way, I was quoting from a book by people (Frank Viola & George Barna considered as respectable Christian scholars. None of the words and ideas there was mine. I am sure you would have been familiar with some of these discussion already, so what I posted would have been nothing new to you.

True - I'm familiar with those authors; and I do not follow their slant in "Christainity". From the earliest times I came across them, I knew it would not be long before they drove themselves to the edge where their blasphemous shade of religious ideas would become clear to all. A case in point is the book now that is misleading many "Christians" - the book: 'The Shack', in which the author describes the Trinity in humanistic terms with God the 'father' as an American woman! This is more than a joke, huxley; and all this so-called "new reality" is based on one false premise which they have dyed themselves hard: their disdain for what they describe as "institutional church". Anyone familiar with them and listens to their sermons will see New Ageism under the cavalier masque. One who has a living reality in their relationship with God cannot acknowledge those works as "Christian scholarship".

huxley:
From a bible perspective, I and convinced that the NT as it is today appear to clearly favour tithing. For me, this raises two questions;

1) IS the tithing in the NT the same practice as described and mandated in the OT?

No, and I have shared extensively on that already. The difference is simple: Under the Levitical priesthood, Israel was called upon to tithe by legal requirement; whereas, under the new covenant, there is NO LAW of a legal requirement in the priesthood of Melchizedek to do so! This is why you will never find tithes in NT Christian teaching as a compulsory requirement! So what then? Simply this: by faith, those who understand what Hebrews 7:8 could (not must) tithe as they so desire from their hearts. God won't force anyone, but as anyone is drawn to give their tithes, He receives them.

But what if someone sees Hebrews 7:8 and decides from their heart to not tithe at all till his/her last breath? There are no curses, no hates, no anger from God against them, and no quarrels thereto. This, we can understand, is simply left to such brethren and God - for He alone sees their faith.

huxley:
2) Given that it is accepted amongst many Christian and secular bible scholars that many parts of the NT are interpolations, made to pursue certain theological agenda, it could be that those NT references to tithing were additions made many years after the books were originally written.

This is mere speculation - and I said earlier that my persuasions does not derive from secular literature. Those who go about with a "Christian" badge and yet bend their convictions of secular speculations are best left to their musings.

huxley:
If Viola & Barne's account are anything near correct (ie that earlier church history does not show it practicing tithing), then it is conceivable that the redactors of the NT might have inserted text to present tithing in a favourable light, in view of the considerable percuniary implication it would have had for the church coffers.

Let Viola and Barne show us how Hebrews 7:8 was a "latter interpolation". It is easy for chaps like that to clutter their thinking for whatever reason suits their agenda best; but pilgrim.1 does not bend her convictions to their slant.

Shalom.

huxley:
Which type of tithes do you advocate? The single or the multi tithes approach? Looks like the biblical scholarly position is divided about what this really means.

On what covenant are those based? if you're still struggling with the old covenant, could you help refresh your mind as to what I have always consistently stated? My persuasions for tithing are not based upon the old covenant under the Levitical priesthood. I have said so many times over.

huxley:
If God is omniscient, how come he did not know that Abraham was faithful to him, but had to put him and Isaac through this ordeal

Did Abraham slay Isaac? Is that the "ordeal"? God knew Abraham's heart, but in speaking those words to the hearing of the patriarch, He was reassuring him that there was nothing quizzical about the latter's faith in Him. There are so many examples about this type of matter - it is simply a case of prophetic confirmation.

@huxley,

huxley:
Hello,

My interest in this is not to ridicule but to understand how it could be that "god's" command could be so variously interpreted.

Okay, my apologies for my very firm tone. It was not intended against your person, and I should not have been quoting you directly even though I know that you were reposting others just to "seek" what the variance in interpretation. No worries there - this is not the only subject that people have disagreed on (and it doesn't have to be a Biblical subject for people to disgaree). In anycase, since you were seeking various interpretations, I wonder how it is that it is only those who disafvour tithes that seem to catch your interest most.

huxley:
What is the standard, guiding principle, etc, etc, behind any proposition or injunction in the christian doctrine.  That is what fascinates me about religion.

You know what fascinates me? It is the attitude of people not being serious enough to look at issues objectively. I do not want to repeat myself endlessly here again; but if anyone wants to know the difference between matters under the old covenant and the new covenant, all the needed to do is make the effort to not mix them up - and then appreciate the fact that they were never confused in the Bible. This was one of the reasons I posted the difference in detail and simply in the previous couple of pages. Not even as if I'm the only one who has done this: others have even done a finer job simplifying issues in fewer words than I could manage.

huxley:
Why is it that a section of people can think themselves so right and others so wrong, reading exactly the same book and supposedly being guided by the same god?

That is no problem at all, huxley. Even if all Christian agree, is it not the same book that many skeptics and atheists have read with different, disagreeing objections thereto? I have taken the time to look at so many fields of human endeavours, and everyone seems to interprete issues differently - a few just to tease us:

     -- many meteorologists have different weather forecasts on the same region

     -- many biologists differ in their interpretation of mechanisms for evolutionary biology
        (Richard Dawkins was so bitter against Stephen J. Gould - and both were atheists)

     -- politicians are not all agreed on interpretations of political issues among themselves

     -- two people can look at the same artwork and have different interpretations thereto
         (Dan Brown gave a weird interpretation of Leonardo Da Vinci's last supper from what
         secular art critics know and teach)

     -- even in the recent discussions we had on Buddhism, both of us had different opinions
         as to whether the Theravada was actually a religious or atheistic worldview, not so?

If the problem was about viewing things differently under the claim that those interpreters claim all to be guided by God, it makes no surprises, dear huxley. .  because not everyone making a claim actually has the reality of that claim in experience.

Cheers.

huxley:
Are we under the Old Testament law today?

Was Abraham under the Old Testament Law when he tithed?

huxley:
The answer to this is both yes and no. The Old Testament law covered two aspects of the Jews life, their personal and national relationship to God as well as their relationship as an individual to civil authority.

That's actually three aspects he spoke of there:

(a) "their personal and (b) national relationship to God"

Personal relationship to God was never once confused for the national relationship they had with God. Each person's faith brought blessing to that person; but as per the national relationship, one person's evil may affect the whole nation!

(c) "their relationship as an individual to civil authority"

Sorry, Israel was an a theocratic nation - your author should have known better! It was not a "civic" nation built on democracy, but rather on theocracy. If "civic" (however one slices it) was merely pertaining to citizen responsibilities, then the author was mixing up issues here because that would simply mean their "national relationship" - which he already mentioned. Then what waste repeating himself and making it a different issue?

huxley:
The civil law is still in affect today. But the law concerning our relationship to God has undergone a change (Hebrew 7:12) under the new covenant. If one studies civil laws, we can clearly see today that our civil law's have their roots in the old covenant law.

here is the big throb on his toe! Dear huxley, it pays to be careful when quoting people - to post these utility grade scholarship only makes one wonder if you really have a handle on what you're proffering for others to read. I would like to ask YOU pointedly - could you enunciate the "civic law" which your author say is still in effect today? When you do so, then I shall show you how trailed off he was by many miles.

Many thanks.

huxley:
Some more stuff about tithing take from here

Tithing:
New Testament Principle (Law) or Religious Bondage
John Keefe, DC



Tithing is part of the Law

Scriptural basis: command in the law, Leviticus 27:30

By what LAW or COMMAND did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek?

@huxley,

huxley:
If the following has already been posted, I apologise. Taken from here

Please don't weary yourself quoting every simplistic argument against tithes, okay? I have read Russell Earl Kelly's book (800 pages long) and the guy kept yapping excuses like a vomiting machine and yet he was unable to come to the simple basic question that non-tithers have found very enigmatic. Here is the man:
https://fgn.typepad.com/freegoodnews/images/russsuitjpg_1.jpg

You know the one problem with these folks? It is this: basing ALL their arguments against Tithes on the Mosaic Law. There is nothing more than that. This is the same man who called the Melchizedek case in the book of Hebrews a "scandal" - and any godly fellow needs to ask himself/herself what value is such an idea to the health of Christian ministry? Or, how different is that declaration from those who have been scuttling round this issue with sources that tend to place Abraham's tithing on par with "pagan" rites?

Since this is not your problem, any excuse against tithes just seems to please you guys so very much that you can't hold yourselves. It seems remarkable indeed that one could spend all their energy fighting against something they have no clue about - and it just comes across as a testimony to a restless conscience.

This matter is not about endless or 800 pages long excuses. If people don't want to tithe, what is the quarrel there? Are tithers asking a dime from the pockets of non-tithers and tithe-anatgonists?

I know and have enjoyed the other messages of some godly men who also teach against tithes. Such men as J. Vernon McGee and John MacArthur. Although these men do not encourage tithes, nonetheless they do not descend to the sanctimonious hubris of declaring the case of Melchizedek a "scandal". We can all exercise some charity about matters which we do not agree with one another on. . but for someone to use the Bible to preach extremes and curse his fellow brethren to HELL (as I pointed out sometime earlier) is a most ungodly adventure - all in the name of. . TITHE?!?

I have said it before and say it again: TITHE is not the problem here. many people hold their misgivings against tithes for matters which are far removed from what it actually is in Scripture. That is why they curse others with a religious sanctimony, proclaim that tithers are on the road down to HELL; go so far as to use the same tithes to refer to others as thieves, liars, manipulators, and rogues. . . and for pete's sake, could someone tell me what name Russell Earl kelly has made for himself for asking $16 for his book initially? What does such money-making scheme make Russell if he was at liberty to make money from a subject he detests and ask for your money to sell his vexations in order to repudiate others in his book? Today, his friends are pretending that he has been giving out his book free! I knew when he released his book and how much he was panning it for!

Dear huxley, after all the efforts to ridicule this issue (by quoting those who no less have themselves ridiculed what they have no clue to), please rest your heart. Until you could find such adulators who could answer my one simple question on Hebrews 7:8 often quoted, your efforts here are best wasted. Best of luck at other times.

Cheers.

Well, I don't think it was wise to have repeat this one from here. Perhaps all you needed to do was update the previous thread. Cheers.

Get Inspired By This Dutchman That Built A Replica Of Noah's Ark

Hi again, folks.

After perusing the various contributions about this subject and promising sometime to come back to share a few pointers, I thought first to throw in a resource - just food for thought. It comes from a link someone sent to my email and asked what I thought about it. For one, my kind respects to Pastor Mark Driscoll, whom I have only come to know through intros from emailers. Listened to a few of his messages (as well recommended) and was greatly impressed and refreshed. I haven't gone through all chapters in the reco-'ed linked, and should be able to come bacl later and share a few thoughts on it afterwards. Here it is: A Theology of P_A_Christians (most 'church-goers' find it quite offensive, so beware!)

For now, let me leave you with this: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thess. 5:22).

Shalom.

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
So how do you relate "teacher of good things" to being a pastor or even a leader of a church, was it specified or implied in that scripture that they did their teachings in a church because Apostle paul was very clear and unambiguos when he stated without reservations that women weren't allowed to speak in churches _{talk less of pastoring it} The fact that you choose to use this remotely related scripture to butress your point makes it very obvious that you simply do not have any case. you are probably arguing your case from the biased position of being a woman and not sound scriptural doctrine.

Kunle, answers to your repeated questions are in those links I already pointed out. Fresh questions welcome, if any.

Cheers.

Edit:

As I said already, whinging does not help this matter at all, and I have shown you what you can do instead of making such bland remarks: (here) and (here). Blessings.

Dear paulipopo,

How body?

paulipopo:
5. Mental enslavement and fanatism go together. While Christians readily finger Islamic fundamentalists as fanatics they fail to see that they are neither better nor widely different from those they finger as zealots.

They "fail to see that they are neither better nor widely different from those they finger as zealots", not so?  But by pointing fingers at others, what have YOU been doing?

          Romans 2:1   -- 

        "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:
          for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself;
          for thou that judgest doest the same things."

If you know already that something is seriously wrong with pointing accusing fingers at others, then perhaps it may help you reason a while about your attempts to have been doing that very same thing! As we find again a solemn nugget of truth that 'you who teach others, will you not teach yourself also?' (Rom. 2:21).

I only learned from a friend recently a Nigerian adage: "If you dey point one finger at somebody, remember sey three fingers dey point back to you! Who know where that little finger (thumb) dey point?" Be careful what you celebrate.

@huxley,

huxley:
I have not strong view on this as it does not matter to me either way.

I don't see how that should have bothered you to quote anyone's assumption as if that is what really matters, though. That is why (pardon me) I took the approach to show where some of these chaps have it all skewed altogether.

huxley:
However, whose parents spent a huge part of my inheritance on tithes, I feel a bit miffed if they were conned into giving away so much money to the church.

Tithes are not your problem; and that is why I don't entertain people who want to hang their misgivings on this subject as a platform to introduce what does not border on the subject. So many people are blaming their misgivings on tithe - in all honesty, that grievance is much misplaced.

huxley:
Pilgrim, it is obvious that you are arguing a theological position. From a religious perspective, nothing wrong with that. However, is such theology founded on historical or factual evidence?

My dear huxley, I do not look at a secular report in order to understand a Biblical subject! That is the mistake so many people have been making; and yet when I ask simple questions from the Bible, you see the same people scuttling frantically about, because they have been dyed hard on the musings of secularists than on the simple premise of the solid answers found in Scripture. If you want historical or factual evidence, I have been dealing with that from Scripture - and those who make so much noise from a secular slant to describe it as "pagan" and often resorting to extra-scriptural "evidence" (so-called) are themselves unable to deal with the simple questions offered them.

At least, some have tried - with a few others we have ironed out some variance of opinions: and we have done these discussions on the Bible. However, the one striking thing is that those who run to "pagan" sources to justify their positions have not been able to point directly to Scripture for what they even argue! Amazing! I don't mind people calling me names of all sorts - and the only time I would react is when that rascality is hurting others! Why then should I take anyone seriously who presses his views from an outside source in order to negate what they know is Biblical but just playing round the issue all along?

I could as well run to so many such sources to argue a position discrediting Christian convictions - and I have done so previously before I became a Christian! The sources I used at that time were so embarrassing to the Christians I argued with - very few of them who aspired to be pastors. Today, while regretting my actions back then, I am an unrepentant and unflinching believer who will take no nonsense from people using that same matrix to deride what they little have any clues to. Not that I project myself as a "great scholar" - not at all. But while I may be accommodating to differences of interpretations, it is of very little interest to me whatever anyone says but cannot show from Scripture.

huxley:
If you are in favour of tithing, where do you get your support from?

Why should I tell you that on a public forum? Am I accountable to you, huxley? Have I ever asked you about your personal details?

You see, dear huxley, this is the sort of hubris that I decline from people who push themselves beyond rational postures to overbearing and inordinate passions. However, I could answer that same question in two ways:

(a) I tithe from my own income, and not from anybody's pockets, arguments, or excuses from a "pagan" literature.

(b) Ask the same question to those who "just give"  -  I have never seen how those same people have been bold to reveal anything about their own lives; afterall, I did not shy away from sharing my persuasions for tithing - nor did I make my persuasions the standard LAW for anyone at all! Talk is cheap - it is easier to point fingers at others; but never so easy to take the bold step to show our own substance in reality.

So, I wonder why you would even be so disturbed as to push yourself this way? Since you don't tithe, how does another person's tithing become a worry to you personally? Pardon me if I get this wrong (and I do not mean here to be crude at all); but I don't get your purpose in that query.

huxley:
1) Is there evidence that Jesus taught in favour of tithes

Yes, Matthew 23:23 for example.

huxley:
2) Is there evidence the early Christians practised tithings

Yes; and I do not take the secularist report as confirmation to the same, either for or against. This is why I have asked questions specifically on Hebrews 7:8. care to make an exegesis on that yourself?

huxley:
3) Where are the NT doctrines that favour tithings

I have shared extensively on this matter - and apart from those two, just go back a couple of pages and you will see the details which up until now have not be countered sensibly by those who disagree.

huxley:
If your theology is founded on facts, then we would like to see them.

Which is why I have invited you to go visit those couple of pages back.

huxley:
If it is founded on re-interpretational inventions (in the manner of Apostle Paul's teaching) you should also make that clear.

If I have invented any interpretations at all, the one thing to do is go back and draw out those texts and show how such interpretations fall short of Biblical exegesis and deixis. It is easier to question the veracity of a conviction - but it is not as easy to betake one's heart and soul into an honest exegesis of Scripture. Constantly denying a text and querying it endlessly is not the same thing as rightly dividing the Word (2 Tim. 2:15).

Cheers.

@sleekmag,

Yes, I had a very good weekend indeed, thanks!

sleekymag:
@ Gamine & Pilgrim.1,
I actually had typed my last post before seeing you guys had cleared d misunderstanding. Sorry for that too.

No wahala - I guessed as much.

sleekymag:
However, for minds that are not well grounded in God's word and that need to learn, they either learn from the arguments and take a stand (for or against), while others even get more confused with the whole thing. Bottomline is someone like KunleOshob cannot accept Pilgrim's stance on the topic, just as Pilgrim (and I) won't accept his stance, based on our knowledge and what we feel is right. So i think, i'd rather let sleeping dogs lie.

True, we are all learning - and believe me I've gained so very much to strengthen my faith from all that have transpired. This is why our brethren who run to some encyclopedia and internt link describing tithes as "pagan" to argue that there was no verse at all in the NT that ever mentioned anything about tithes for Christians, I simply want to learn from them WHO is being spoken of in Hebrews 7:8 as receiving the tithes THERE. Why is it that we repeatedly see the highlight on verses 5, 12 and 18; but they are often shy of verse 8?!?

Let me help them quote it one more time from AMP:

            ●   ⁸[/b]Furthermore, [b]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].   ~~~ AMP

Can these brethren tell me who is the One who receives tithes THERE because it is testified the HE LIVES PERPETUALLY?

                WHO is this ONE Who Lives PERPETUALLY?

I dey wait for their answers.