foumaleka:

One day in the Garden of Eden, Eve calls out to God, "Lord, I have a problem!" "What's the problem, Eve?" "Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals, and that hilarious comedic snake, but I'm just not happy." "Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above. "Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples." "Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you." "What's a 'man,' Lord?" "This man will be a flawed creature, with many bad traits. He'll lie, cheat, and be vainglorious; all in all, he'll give you a hard time. But, he'll be bigger, faster, and will like to hunt and kill things. He will look silly aroused, but since you've being complaining, I'll create him in such a way that he will satisfy your, ah, physical needs. He'll be witless and will revel in childish things like fighting and kicking a ball about. He won't be too smart, so he'll also need your advise to think properly." "Sounds great," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow. "What's the catch, Lord?" "Yeah, well, you can have him on one condition." "What's that, Lord?" "As I said, he'll be proud, arrogant, and self-admiring, So you'll have to let him believe that I made him first, So, just remember, it's our secret, Woman-to-woman!" [/b]

Epilogue.

Man: "Ehm. . . Lord, I'm kinda wondering about that conversation you had with Eve."

You know her. . . As a woman, she'll believe anything. Don't worry Adam: I just told her she's first so that she'll argue less with you.

Man: "Thanks. I also wonder if she paid any attention - because she's always using her mouth like a razor."

That's something I gave her for protection. . . just incase she can't stand up to your pride.

@trini_girl,

Lol, they took all the trouble to propose that joke, and it sure makes one laugh. If we are to subject the 'Google religion' to some test of sorts, then the Google-god is as insufficient as the creators of Google. Let's see:

PROOF #1

Google is the closest to an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence. She indexes over 9.5 billion Web Pages, which is more than any other search engine on the web today. Not only is Google the closest to all-knowing, but She also sorts through this vast amount of data using Her patented PageRank method, making said data accessible for us mere mortals.

Debunked. The fact is that Google is not Omniscient (all-knowing). With such a vast index of webpages, perhaps only webbloggers will be attracted as her worshippers. Besides, the human brain is debatably more indexed and complex than Google's boasted hold. Infact, someone has said he could beat Google's speed to a calculation test by spending less time solving (0.897567)⁴ x (2.5)³! How?? Just pull the PC plug and do the maths while Google waits forever!

PROOF #2

Google is everywhere at once (Omnipresent). Google's search engine is virtually everywhere on earth at the same time. Billions of indexed WebPages hosted from every corner of the earth. With the proliferation of Wi-Fi networks, you will eventually be able to access Google from anywhere on earth, truly making Her an omnipresent entity.

Debunked. Google has restricted access in a few places, such as in China (where the mainland government has blocked Google's Website on several occasions; and google.tk [or "Google Tokelau"] is completely inaccessible from within China). Besides, it has not been verified that Google can be accessed from outside the earth's atmosphere, before its claim to being "Omnipresent."

PROOF #3

Google answers prayers. One can pray to Google by doing a search for whatever question or problem is plaguing them. As an example, you can quickly find information on alternative cancer treatments, ways to improve your health, new and innovative medical discoveries and generally anything that resembles a typical prayer. Ask Google and She will show you the way, but showing you is all She can do, for you must help yourself from that point on.

Debunked. There are loads of materials that present authentically sourced answers in the listed concerns of alternative cancer treatments, health, new and innovative medical discoveries. . . but not "anything that resembles a typical prayer". Besides the risks of inadvertently downloading virus from some recommended links from Google, the "answers" on any topic at all that the search engine returns is typically a cacophony of dilated views.

PROOF #4

Google is potentially immortal. She cannot be considered a physical being such as ourselves. Her Algorithms are spread out across many servers; if any of which were taken down or damaged, another would undoubtedly take its place. Google can theoretically last forever.

Debunked. Google only remains running as long its servers are regularly maintained. Improved servers are all over the market; and it is these servers that should be considered "potentially immortal" as long as they keep Google running. So, without these servers, Google would not be 'alive' as it does not run on its own.

PROOF #5

Google is infinite. The Internet can theoretically grow forever, and Google will forever index its infinite growth.

Debunked. There will always be a measurable index for search engines; and where it is infinite/immeasurable/unreadable, then it will return an "error" page.

PROOF #6

Google remembers all. Google caches WebPages regularly and stores them on its massive servers. In fact, by uploading your thoughts and opinions to the internet, you will forever live on in Google's cache, even after you die.

Debubked. Google doesn't remember anything apart from what is stored on its servers. As long as these servers are efficiently updated and maintained, the stored info will be accessible. Should a very smart hacker succeed in throwing a 'spanner' (virus such as "sas" into Google's servers, it will potentially lose some of its vast store of info - some of them very critical.

PROOF #7

Google can "do no evil" (Omnibenevolent). Part of Google's corporate philosophy is the belief that a company can make money without being evil.

Debunked. While Google can do some info-good, it has also been used to source "evil". Doubt me?? Simple: just google the word "evil" and see for yourself! The last count was 192,000,000 results it offered - and still counting!

PROOF #8

Evidence of Google's existence is abundant. There is more evidence for the existence of Google than any other God worshiped today. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary proof. If seeing is believing, then surf over to www.google.com and experience for yourself Google's awesome power.

Debunked. Everybody is asking for "evidence" of sorts; and those who do not believe in the existence of any "god" (including the 'Google-god') have their own type of "evidence". At best, many other search engines offer as much a 'surfing proof' as does Google: would they also pass for the Google-religion??

@Nella,

Nella:

once again " i'm not here 2 debate wats demonic or not!!!"
but just one ques, what makes scientists soo sure that there is no God??

That's the central question. In one line: some scientists know that there is a God - and you will find many of these scientists as Christians, Muslims, Jews and people of other faiths.

Science and atheism are not the same, even though many atheists would seem to hold out the idea that science thrashes out all other things - including the supernatural. There are some scientists who are deists and are not so driven to the denial of the existence of some deity of sorts.

However, many atheists who seem to think that science answers all questions of life, have yet not been able to proffer answers to supernatural phenomena. Some scientists who are willing to admit that there are such phenomena in real life, would rather say that science does not provide answers to every question in reality.

@Katigurl,

Katigurl:

my family is weired, because ma mum belives in God n ma Dad dosent, i'm kind of in d middle!
ma Dad dosen't because he's more on d scientist side kind of person,
stuck in d middle i don't know which of them is right!!

One may not say who is right or wrong in this matter because we don't live with your family. What one can say with any degree of closeness is that your mum believes in God for reasons best known to her; while your dad is not yet convince of the existence of any God.

I'll offer this: as a Christian, my belief in the existence of God is founded on my having experienced His power and grace in a very real way. I have prayed for certain issues - some of which I've received answers; others did not yield answers - at least, not in the way I expected. I have also seen people healed supernaturally by God's power after having sought medical help for years. This is not to disparage the medical profession; but rather to highlight the fact of what I have witnessed for myself.

I have also seen people pray for issues in the lives of others; and the results have been miraculous, and have affected the way I saw things prior to that time. An example is the charismata called the "word of knowledge" (I Cor. 12:, where someone speaks about an event that he/she previously knew nothing about. During my undergraduate days in Nigeria, I didn't know exactly what it meant until a complete stranger casually said to my close friend: "Don't be afraid: God heard your prayers and you won't have to pay so much for your project (sic). Another lecturer will be your supervisor, and in exactly 4 days you will be visited by a Canadian missionary who will give you the exact amount for your project."

My friend was surprised and confused (as I was). He turned to this stranger who was sitting behind him in the cafeteria and asked a pointed question: "So, if that is true, what is my Department and Faculty?" His reply: "You ask too many questions and you need to calm down and be willing to trust God more when you pray." And with that, he stood up to leave. But my friend anticipated him and asked him another question (I couldn't make out exactly what was said between them); but turning to me, the stranger smiled and said: "Please press on him to go home now!"

A day before the 4th day predicted, my friend eventually went home even though there was a test paper 3 days from then. To cut a long story, he was visited by a Canadian missionary, and eventually gave him the equivalent of N36,455 for his project. He counldn't contain himself and got back to school only to find the test paper was cancelled! The next day, he was called by another lecturer who was to be his new supervisor - and guess how much they came to on his project? Exactly N36,455!!

Now the question is: how scientific was this event, especially as we never saw that stranger from that time till I left Nigeria? All I can say is that, it affected my understanding of the "word of knowledge" and further strengthened my faith in God as a Christian.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

So far you've not been able to disprove my arguments as yet, not that you can, which disproves your conclusion. Thank God I am not a boaster!

Oh, now I see the Pharisaic spirit at work. _{Luke 18:11}

Bobbyaf:

You have a lot to learn! The bible as we have it today has been compiled by men who were not perfect in their translational efforts. It becomes very important to confirm certain problematic texts as the one under question with the original language from which it was translated. There has never been anything novel about what I suggested, and in fact it doesn't take anything from the bible when I say. Its plain common sense.

You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about the original language so far.

Bobbyaf:

Really! Go check the threads and see who has supplied more texts and references. As a matter of fact, the passages I have supplied are more in support of what I have put forth. So your keep your feisty comments to yourself. Don't allow self to take over now. Why take cheap shots now, when it seems your argument is going nowhere.

Filling pages with more texts and references says nothing if you can't interpret them correctly. I haven't been feisty until you decided you couldn't talk to people.

Bobbyaf:

Of course the "all things" there wouldn't necessarily mean just what Jesus accomplished as some others on the board would have us believe. There are still more matters that were mentioned in the books of the prophets and the psalms that are not yet fulfilled. For example we still have the present heavens and earth to which Jesus mentioned in matthew 5.

What Jesus said in Matthew 5, He explained in Luke 24.

Bobbyaf:

I didn't need the concordance to define what the church means. I knew that some many years ago. The first called out ones were Adam and Eve and their line of righteous descendants.

Interesting. Adam and Eve were called out from what? And to what "Church" did they belong?

Bobbyaf:

Yet your little knowledge of hebrew cannot even help you to see and understand the scripture. Moses ddin't baptise anyone, but the expression means under Moses' leadership. Symbolically and spiritually they were baptised when they demonstrated faith in moving forward through the Red Sea. The same Christ who formed the NT church was the same God who led Moses and His people.

My statement was worded in exactly as I found it in Scripture - "baptized unto Moses" and the full text is "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (I Cor. 10:2 - and that was in Greek in the original, not 'hebrew' as you hinted). Nowhere did I state that "Moses baptized anyone" - so don't play cheap here by insinuating what I didn't. My point was simply that "The NT Church is not a continuum of the 'ecclesia' in the wilderness who were baptized unto Moses."

Bobbyaf:

Yet Moses, Enoch, and Elijah are already in heaven even without a NT church! Salvation is the common denominator for all dispensations. Its one grace, one God, and one salvation. Christ said that He will build His church for a reason other than the reason you have lamely put forward.

What "reason" did you read in the portion of my quote you cut out? You could argue the rest with Christ - for I only referenced what He said; and if that was 'lame', He knows just what to tell you on that Day.

Bobbyaf:

The Jewish church had completely lost the main purpose for which Christ had called it, assuming you knew that it was Christ who called the Jewish church also. It was now time for Christ to make a fresh start that would include the gentiles, rather than leave indefinitely the divine oracles with them, the Jews.

The Gentiles had always been in God's plan, so your point here is mute.

Bobbyaf:

Rubbish! I dare you to find one scripture that remotely repeats that utter nonsense. Paul said that Salvation has appeared to all men as I have rightly quoted.

Actually, if you had eyes to see, you'd have seen the quote I referenced earlier - I Pet. 1:10-12. If God's word is rubbish to you, I understand why you keep treating it the way you do.

Bobbyaf:

Through your false understanding and teaching you yourself, although inadvertently bring disgrace upon God's grace. Your version of limited and cheap grace I can do without. Your Greek parsing is worthless! Stop ferreting from the internet and books.

I've taken worse from guys not worth two dinars in the market - you're not a mite better if you can't do worse than them. It's laughable that you who plagiarised the web and recycled inconsistent material on Nairaland without giving due credit now turn round to accuse me. Guffaws.

Bobbyaf:

Same covenant but only because the circumstances were different. Thats all! There is no need for God to change His plans of salvation. He is the same God yesterday, today and forever more.
The bible term new is what is confusing you, bu tin reality God's covenant cannot really change.

I'm sorry to observe that God's inspired word said clearly what I quoted earlier, that the first covenant was found faulty and gave place to the second - Heb. 8:6-7 & 13, no confusing the one for the other. Second, Moses made clear that it was only to the Israelites that God made the covenant, and not with their fathers - Deut. 5:2-3. He made no such covenants with the patriarchs but only with the Israelites at that time at Horeb.

Bobbyaf:

Take a look at this passage
Psalm 89:34
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
In oher words God renewed the covenant given to Moses only because our effort to keep the agreement failed. Paul in Hebrews explains that under better terms, being ratified by Christ blood, etc; this renewed covenant would be more successful. It would be based on Christ making the promises instead of us who are not able to do it by ourselves.

Heb 8:7-9 >>  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

God's Word = NOT according to the covenant God made with their fathers. He did not renew the covenants given to Moses.

Bobbyaf:

There is nothing new about God saving a people if that is what the covenant is all about. I cannot think of another covenant that wouldn't continue what God started.

Hebrews 8 tells us the very opposite.

Bobbyaf:

I didn't think you'd stoop so low just to win a point! This is your original quote that didn't mention a scripture as such but your persoonal thought. Now you're pretending to be smart by lying about putting up a scriptural reference.

There's no lie but what you supposed there, for I only made reference to what the Bible said. If you called it "rubbish", I only pointed it yet again by including the reference in my second reply without changing anything in what I said earlier. If you'd asked me to reference it rather than be too quick to call it rubbish, you'd not have tongue-tied yourself at all.

Bobbyaf:

And I will continue to call any such statements of that nature rubbish, and especially in the light of it being without substance.

No bother - I'm not surprised that's how you treat the Bible.

Bobbyaf:

Its one thing to chat rubbish, its quite another thing to be dishonest about it.

In just the way you've demonstrated - lap up your snivel.

Bobbyaf:

trying to trick me Syrup?

Feeling uneasy already for a simple question?

Bobbyaf:

God has given us 6 days in which to toil and labour so as to be able to take care of life. On those days we are still expected to give time for God and His work. However, He has set aside a day from creation where He and us can commune for a longer time together, where our minds are more refreshed and attuned to spiritual matters.

6 days to toil and labour - and on which of those 6 days are we not to spend our time "doing spiritual things"?

And on what days should we not spend our time "doing spiritual things"?

What do you christians need OT for? - that's the question. All Scripture is God-breathed, but how do we read and interpret them?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

@ malik
Its funny how you can judge another's motives so hastily and more effectively than you're able to prove all I have said so far as unbiblical.
Just bear in mind what Jesus said, "judge not lest you be judged" You're in no position to judge my motives/character, so please stick to the issue at hand. Thank you.

Did you not ferret your ideas from a website? So, what's the point of your whining? The websites you might have been getting your answers from are not reading the Scriptures well - and it has nothing to do with judging your character. Take your own advice.

@Bobbyaf,

First of all, I observe that you hardly know your Bible and will pick on just about any verse to force a pretext.

Bobbyaf:

I support the idea that this may have been one of those passages that had a difficult translation, like many others which have been. How do I conclude that? Its pretty simple. If majority of the verses say it was God who rewrote, and this single verse, although with questionable circumstances seem to be saying that it was Moses, then I'd rather go with the weight of evidence.

I see, and since the one verse is with "questionable circumstances" and appears in God's word, you have the liberty to choose which to believe and which to "question". Thank you.

Bobbyaf:

Now this is from Moses' own words my friend. I wonder if you see what I am saying? All I am saying is that you should never be too eager to take one verse and build something around it unless you can show other passages that back up that verse.

Which is precisely what you have been doing again and again, not only here but in other threads.

Bobbyaf:

I am saying that the 10 commandments are eternal as a law by itself. The word of God says so. Let me quote:
Psalm 111:7-8
7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

See how you've treated a verse in isolation simply because it mentions "commandments". Did the Psalmist specifically say it was the "10 commandments"?

Bobbyaf:

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

And what "Law" was He referring to? Have you considered what Christ Himself said in Luke 24:44? Here - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Bobbyaf:

Has heaven and earth disappeared as yet? Has everything been accomplished as yet? NOPE!

I can't laugh more at your carping.

Bobbyaf:

Obviously you do not know what the word church really means. Taken from the greek word "ecclesia" it means the called-out ones. Israel was the church then. Today from Christ's day the church consisted of jews and gentiles. The term church cannot be confined to just the NT times and beyond, because salvation was never confined to just the NT believers.

Oh now, I see how you interpret scripture - just by looking up any word in a concordance, you can't make a distinction between the one and the other. And FYI, I'm well familiar with Greek and Hebrew, so don't even start. The NT Church is not a continuum of the 'ecclesia' in the wilderness who were baptized unto Moses. Christ spoke of His Church as yet future in Matt. 16:18 when He said "I will build my church" (future tense, meaning that the Church was not in existence by then). The Church began when the Holy Spirit was poured out in Acts 2, and not before then.

Bobbyaf:

Listen to Paul as he talks about salvation and who it was intended for:
Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
The all men would begin from Adam down to the very last man to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

When you read a text, study its context. The grace of God that brings salvation was not in operation until Christ had accomplished His work on the Cross. "Has appeared" is an indicative tense showing that it was not revealed previously, and Peter makes clear that the OT prophets who prophesied of that grace knew it was not meant for them but for us, as it was not then in operation until after Christ accomplished His work -

I Pet. 1:10-12 >>  "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

Bobbyaf:

Typical thoughtless response. The covenant didn't start with the Moses or the Israelites. It started with the first sinners as recorded in Genesis 3:15, where God promised that a saviour would come to redeem fallen man. This covenant has a basic agreement which is to obey and trust God and live not just in this life but to have eternal life through faith in the future death of God's Son.

In other words, your own version of "typical thoughtless response" is saying that the same covenant that God gave to Israel began not with Moses or the Israelites but with the first sinners - Adam and Eve? Okay, so God gave that covenant to Adam and Eve according to your thoughless response, and yet Moses in the Bible says: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deut. 5:2-3).

Bobbyaf:

This covenant took various shape and was repeated with God's righteous people in every dispensation, starting with Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and then Moses.

I wait to see how you read this from Scripture, especially in light of Deut. 5:2-3. What "various shape" are you referring to?

Bobbyaf:

This same covenant has been renewed since Moses and what we call the New Covenant. The only thing new about it this time round is that its built on better promises seeing it was ratified with Jesus' blood, and God Himself is making the promises instead of us.

God did not renew the same covenant, please. He did not ratify the same covenant with the blood of His Son, but completely set it aside for another -

Heb 8:6-7 & 13 >> "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. . . In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

There's nowhere man ever made a promise to God as predicating a covenant; so that last line in yours that "God Himself is making the promises instead of us" is a mute one.

Bobbyaf:

Hahahahaha, , you really believe that rubbish?

Next time, look carefully before you leap. I was referring to God's word, which you now call rubbish. And here it is -

Gal 3:12 - "And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

That is what you call "rubbish", and yes, I really believe it, even if you don't. The full statement I made in context was - "Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith." Call it rubbish, but that's what the Word of God teaches.

Bobbyaf:

In other words if you say you have faith in Christ and teach men to dishonour His law of 10 commandments, your faith is not valid. The faith that you possess is a gift from God, but God's grace doesn't afford you the right to become disobedient. It was never given to make you think you're free from obeying God. It was given to empower you to overcome sin. Thats why Paul says: "where sin abounds, grace did much more abound"

Please, when you quote a text, don't read interpolations that are not there into the text - that is called eisegesis. The text you quoted in James 2:14-17 does not even make reference to the 10 commandments, so don't try to judge a Christian by that. By interpolating that idea into the quoted text, you're playing a surprising sleight of hand.

Exodus 34:27-28 NIV
²⁷Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." ²⁸Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 Amplified Bible
²⁷And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words, for after the purpose and character of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. ²⁸Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 New Living Translation
²⁷And the LORD said to Moses, "Write down all these instructions, for they represent the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel." ²⁸Moses was up on the mountain with the LORD forty days and forty nights. In all that time he neither ate nor drank. At that time he wrote the terms of the covenant--the Ten Commandments--on the stone tablets.

Exodus 34:27-28 English Standard Version
²⁷And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." ²⁸So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Some may say that the LORD was the "he" in verse 28 who actually wrote down the Ten commandments a second time. While I respect whatever persuasions anyone may hold as to that, the Hebrew construct does not say so, and several modern translations have inserted "the Lord" there where it does not appear. At any rate, whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law - all came from the same God and none of it originated with Moses.

The Law was given to Israel and not to the Church. The covenant that God made with Israel does not apply to the NT Church. Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith. The two should not be confused. Whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law, and there's only one law and not two.

Wow, @m4malik! Good job, you're very persuasive with your careful analysis.

@Drusilla & Bobbyaf, you guys should really look into the way you interpret issues. It helps to not treat verses in isolation so that we don't read you wrongly. Cheers.

m4malik:

Yep.

Nope.

God.

Just did. You too.

That was quite succinct, but I thought you'd expatiate a little on your answers.

@Bobbyaf,

You've left me more confused than when you first began. Your reply was ambiguous and not succinct enough to convey a clear sense of your arguments.

>> (a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

Bobbyaf:

No! There is only one law giver and that is God. God gave the 10 commandments directly outside of inspiration, and he gave the other laws indirectly through Moses using inspiration. Anyone who writes on God's behalf does it through inspiration.

Pardon me, Bob, but you're not making any sense at all. God gave both the 10 commandments and the Law directly in communication to His people through Moses. As far as divine inspiration is concerned, the Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim. 3:16), in which case there's nothing you read in God's Word that was not given by inspiration of God. And if there's only one Lawgiver, why are you snapping about a distinction between the one law He has given? You're making it sound like God's laws are different from Moses' Law.


>> (b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?

Bobbyaf:

Good question! We are not saved by keeping them, but after we experience salvation by God's grace, we become obliged to do what he commands because we are motivated by love. So the 10 commandments only act as a standard or guide. So the motive is what determines how we keep them.

I don't see what sense you've made here. The OT saints were motivated by love as well to keep God's commandments, so it's just not a NT thing. 'And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.' (Exo. 20:6). When God saves by grace, He nowhere turns us back to a rigid system of keeping the Law. The 10 commandments are codified in the Law, and why would God turn people back again to laws by which we could not be justified in the first place (Acts 13:39)?


>> (and which one - the Law of Moses as distinct and different from the Law of God?)

Bobbyaf:

I gave a comparative list above in a previous post.

Then I highly recommend you take a second look at your list and realise that you only copied and pasted your ideas from a concordance without carefully understanding what is what. I don't mean to be crude, but your list suggests that you were pitting Moses' Law against God's Law - to make it sound like there actually were two lawgivers and two sets of laws! Let me quote you again:

Bobbyaf:

While I agree with you that there is one law giver, your understanding is very much flawed concerning God's 10 commandments law as they relate to the other Mosaic laws. Let me give you some comparitive differences between the two sets of codes

What you should understand here is that, just as m4malik said, Moses' law was God's law because God gave them through Moses to His people, and therefore there was only one Law, and no distinction that suggests a difference in what God has given. This is underscored a number of times in the OT - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo. 12:49); . . . 'Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.' (Lev 24:22); . . . "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. (Num. 15:16). All that Moses passed on to them were actually God's Law and commandments.

Further, you're trying to force a notion that has no bearing in Scripture but which only conveniently helps your ideas by referring to the decalogue as "God's 10 commandments law" - it's rather simply "the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" [ not ' 10 commandments laws' - Ex0. 34:28]. The full import of God's government over His OT saints are called His charge, laws, ordinances, statutes, commandments, and judgements - they are all His because they came directly from Him. See the following -

>> 'Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.' (Gen. 26:5).

>> 'And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?' (Exo. 16:28 - remember that this happened even before the ten commandments were given in chapter 20).

>> Moses himself recognized them as God's statutes and laws - 'When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.' (Exo. 18:16).

The point is that the laws and commandments were given by the LORD and thus were called God's Laws and commandments. But because they were given to the people through Moses, they were referred to as the Laws of Moses, or Moses' law:

>> 'And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.' (Lev 10:11).

>> 'These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.' (Lev 26:46).

>> 'These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai' (Lev. 27:34).

You will find this underscored in Scripture many times, and the big picture is that there are not two sets of codes as you suggested, but only one. The law of Moses is the very same thing as God's law, and to make them into two sets of codes simply shows that you haven't prayerfully studied the subject. Let's see another quote of yours:

Bobbyaf:


Moses law called "the law of Moses" (Luke 2:22), God's law called "the law of the Lord" (Isaiah 5:24).

Moses' law written by Moses in a book (2 Chronicles 35:12), God's law written by God on stone (Exodus 31:18; 32:16).

Any reasonable person looking at the biblical comparison can only conlcude that God's law was designed to govern the moral aspects of worship, while the laws that were written by Moses were so done to deal with the services and rituals that related to a particular type of worship.

Again, this shows clearly that you juxtaposed God's Law and made it into two laws and two lawgivers, regardless the denial you may have to the contrary. I'm persuaded to agree with m4malik that you should go back and prayerfully consider the texts before pouring out anything.

There was only one worship before God in the OT, and only one law served for that purpose. Moses' law was God's law because the former received it from the LORD Himself. Take a look at Luke 2:22 you quoted - "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." This is clearly in reference to Lev. 12:1-8 and the first thing you find in the very first verse is - "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying. . ."

Again, regarding the reference of Exodus 31:18; 32:16 about God's law written by God, you failed to see indeed that when Moses in anger broke the first set of stone tables, God made him produce another set of stone tables and write the exact words of the first by his own hand - it was Moses that wrote with his own hand what God asked him to:

>> "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.' (Exo. 24:12). . . 'And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he [i.e., Moses himself] wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments').

They were God's ordinances and laws - 'Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. . . Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.' (Lev. 18:4-5 & 19:37).

Bobbyaf:

The sabbath was given to mankind from creation. Its typically believed that the sabbath was made for the jews but that is not consistent with Jesus's own words when He said "the sabbth was made for man(mankind)" Mark 2:27 Who was the first man? Adam right? Then it measn that after creation, God instituted the sabbath for him to rest or refresh himself from his work in the garden. That explains why immediately after creation God Himself lead by example, and not becasue He was tired per se, but set aside that specific day for Adam and his descendents. This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews. Collosians speak of these sabbaths as shadows and types.

Don't go beyond what is written so you can be on safe grounds. God didn't give the Sabbath law to Adam, and nowhere do we read of a Sabbath law for Adam. What is stated is that after God finished His work, He rested (in the sense of 'hallow' that day). Second, you're mixing up issues because on the one hand you pedantically made reference to the 10 commandments (which included the Sabbath), and now you're slacking off by saying "This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews." Why then quote the 10 commandments for others if you don't want it to be confused with the special convocations specifically applied to the Jews?

Recognizing your God-given identity:

- we are made in God's image

- we are fearfully and wonderfully made

- we are a perculiar people for Him

Summary: this helps us to a renewed confidence in what God intends for us.

@ Sir Kay,

What did you read that sounds like anyone questioning the Bible?

@Greatpeter,

It does not appear anyone is doubting the rapture so far; rather, the inputs so far seem to be divided between a 'secret rapture', a 'major or minor event', and an 'open rapture for all Christians'.

Eh. . . guys, no harm meant, but I think this is really spiralling out of context. You're reminding me of what the inspired apostle said:

1 Tim 1:7 - 'Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.'

I'm not an arbiter to judge between who's right and who's wrong. Rather, I'll just post my observations by first asking questions for now:

@Bobbyaf,

(a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

(b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?? (and which one - the Law of Moses as distinct and different from the Law of God?)

(c) How exactly do you understand the ramifications of the Sabbath - that is,

     ¤ what are the consequences of keeping or not keeping it?

     ¤ to whom specifically was the Sabbath given - to Jews or Christians?

(d) what then is your summation about those texts in the NT that state that Christians are not under the Law?



@m4malik,

I'd ask pretty much about the same questions, although you've dealt with them in your previous replies. However,

(a) do you agree at all with Bobby that 'the Law' has various connotations in the various contexts where they appear in the NT?

(b) are there any portions of the Law that we should keep at all, or all the Law (in whatever contexts) should be thrown overboard?

(c) who determines what should remain and what to be "abrogated" (i.e., no longer to be applied) in NT Christian living?



Guys, cut the hot air and kid stuff of taunting each other - just focus on what's on ground for discussion so we can learn in as few words as possible. Thank you and enjoy your Sunday.

mukina2:

lahi la ha hi la la muhammadu rasullulah may Allah have mercy on you because you can't post things to hold your claims
you tell me i sound like a mis-informed muslim.

mukina2, why don't you take up his challenge. It's that easy - he's asking that you deny any of the claims he made and then he would supply the relevant texts thereto. You don't have to jump into conclusion that he couldn't post things to hold his claims if you're still going round in circles and avoiding his challenge. Are those things true in Islam - yes or no? It can't be both, and where you disagree with him or any other post, you could then show us why. Move this discussion forward and leave off the dribbling - or your efforts would only make some of us wonder that there's substance to his claims.

mukina2:

why must i listen to a nasarrah? who will spew hateful things towards my religion.

What hateful things did he spew out against your religion? You're sounding like his conversion really got you on the broad side and you can't even resist the temptation of pouring out your derision. By sounding this way, you're making some of us suspect that m4malik was actually right about Islam being intolerant, and perhaps if he was in a Muslim community you guys would have sought the death of his entire family for just being converts to Christianity. The case of the Afghani Christian convert is still fresh in our minds, you know (take a refresher peep: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/ ).

mukina2:

lmao you've been checking my profile ait? expose myself ?how? give me facts to your claims then i'll reply you in adultile way as davidylan said

I'm not aware that the rules in Nairaland have been changed and members are banned from viewing people's profiles. There's nothing wrong with being a 19 y.o., and it really shows. Pssst: I couldn't find a definition for adultile yet; perhaps you should have used a simpler word (try 'mature' or 'grown-up').

TayoD,

You've raised some very important points that would keep me busy for a while, as I have to very carefully consider them in light of important verses that come to mind as I read yours. These are especially in connection to the nature and function of the priests, the sacrifice and gifts offered by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the pictures of these issues in both dispensations of the OC and NC. I'll post my thoughts about them in due course, and thanks for your observations.

Mer-C:

It's hard for me to tell him "hey this ain't gunno work" tho.
How should I approach it?

What are you planning to do?? Break the poor fellow's heart?

The guy goes to church much more than he does Mosques - you said sm'thing like that before, yes? I didn't know that earlier, and from that I presume there's a good chance you both can stick together in good faith. The heat from parents are hard to take, I know; but give it time - I guess your parents need time to see who he really is. Please, try not to let this love between ya both to just dissolve like that. Don't just gee-up like that. . . you both need time to sit and talk, understand the issues before you, find a possible way to plot your graph for the future. . . and if the equation doesn't add up, then let it go. Look at the guy much more than our public comments, please, please and please (both my hands are clasped in entreaty).

Well, at the end of the day - it's your thing dearie. BTW, I like your pix on your profile page. Just give this issue some more thought and see how it goes.

@Nuru,

Could you please explain what 'monotheism' exists in Islam when Allah in the Qur'an severally identifies himself/themselves in the plural with the use of "We" and "Us"?

Thank you.

I came here hoping to read some interesting entries from Muslim contributors, but I'm really staggered!! Abdul fata, what Qur'anic school of thought did you receive your training from? You mean a whole 11 pages of a PDF file to "prove" that Muhammad was the one referred to in Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit in John 14 - 16?? And for all of that, you really believe those chapters were about Muhammad - only when it suits your Islamic stereotype??

Now, I'm beginning to be more convinced that Muhammad's credibility as a prophet/rasool/apostle/messenger or whatever, does not hold substance in the Qur'an or hadith - and by default, Muslims must of necessity frantically appeal to the Bible! The laughable thing about this claim to read Muhammad or Islam "prophesied in the Bible" is that the "scholars" digging the verses for that joke always read them out of context. That is why QuranSearch will see "c[b]o[/b]me/c[b]o[/b]meth" in Jude 14 and translate it as "c[b]a[/b]me"; and in the next verse 15 where he finds "ten thousand[b]s[/b]" (multiples of thousands above and over 10,000), he craftily subsitutes 10,000! Makes me wonder if he was reading those verses with candle light in a whirlwind!

What's the use of 11 pages PDF of cleverly twisted scholarship that say next to nothing? You could even post an entire encyclopedia of 1,111 pages with the same poor reading skills. I'm waiting with my red pen to grade you an "F". It's an understatement to say that I'm highly disappointed!

My friends often say that love is more magnetic than the earth's centripetal force!

Food for thought:

Religion or not, it all boils down to just one thing: YOU! Whether your parents, friends or other close contacts advise you one way or the other, you'll find this romantic "love" more compelling as the driving force in whatever decision you make.

There are lots you and I as Christians don't understand about Islam. The Bible urges that we get married to Christians; but it is understandable that in Islam, Muslim men are permitted and encouraged to marry Christian women; but Muslim women are not permitted to marry Christian men. At the cross-roads is the pivotal question: who and what really matters the most to you - Christ the Saviour or Muhammad? If Jesus doesn't matter that much, girl do your thing. Your boyfriend is not pushing you to renounce your faith, I guess; and it's up to you to handle the future that follows your getting married to him.

One friendly note: getting married to someone you dearly have fallen in love with, but who doesn't follow your religious convictions, will NOT send you to hell (as long as he's not asking you to renounce Christ - that is what will fetch the big trouble). The Bible doesn't promise, however, that such a marriage will be happy and trouble-free, and costly sacrifices will be encountered in such connections. Anyway, don't let this scare you - just think deeply about this most important issue; and may I encourage you to evaluate your relationship with Jesus, and consider if it does not matter in any decision you make in life.

My prayers are with you.

Hi TV01,

I enjoyed your last reply, believe me, and need hardly comment on them, except for a few things.

Point noted and appreciated as regards your opening paragraph beginning with "When contributing. . ." One can hardly avoid ancillary matters in any subject; but I'll try and maintain your erudite observation thereto in future posts.

“Is it mandatory for NT Christians to tithe”? My clear answer to that is "NO!", as long as the word there is "mandatory". Like I've tried to maintain, one cannot legislate against any type of giving, for that is "personal" between God and the giver in the NT. I'm glad to note you recognized that 'personal' aspect to it (unless I misread you):

TV01:

Now, is tithing a bad practice? Not of itself, no. The basis is what we are discussing here. Voluntarily deciding to levy, contribute or tithe, be that collectively or individually is personal. However, preaching it as divinely mandated, robbing God and engendering a curse if one fails to do it religiously, is what I disagree with.

So there - that's why I found 4get_me's entry quite helpful as earlier referred in pointing out that he saw it as "personal" rather than mandatory. And I also disagree with the preaching of any type of giving as "mandatory" - along with the attendant curse, blah-blah. To me, I don't see God cursing His children about a matter that is personally theirs.

TV01:

Example ~ Man is made in the Similitude of God. That does not make us in all respects the same. Jesus is “in the form of God”, “the brightness of His glory”, “the express image of His Person” and “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. An altogether different kind of likeness wouldn’t you agree?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, so can't agree or disagree. Suffice to say that whatever those clauses, it doesn't make Jesus any less "God" - past, present, future. We can agree on that - yes?

TV01:

Maybe we’ve been discussing at slightly odd-purposes, or with different qualifiers.
Yours being “tithing is allowed” mine being “tithing is not divinely mandated”, being the reason for my saying “nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate” in response to your saying “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”

Okay - good point. 'Tithing is allowed' but not 'divinely mandated'. So, it's really a bit quizzical that people would like to legislate against it. Another way of looking at it is: "Tithing is allowed and encouraged, but not enforced or obligatory" in just the same way that no type of giving in the NT is enforced or obligatory.


Moving on to the Melchizedek issue:

TV01:

So while I wholeheartedly agree that The High Priesthood of The Lord is patterned/based/fashioned/akin/in the likeness of Melchizedek’s, I don’t agree with TayoD’s point, which to my reading is claiming it to be identical, and in all ways the same, to the extent that a believers worship response must be identical to Abrahams to be valid. (Which under-girds point 2 of the argument for).

That the priesthood of Jesus is after the order of Melchisedec is clearly identical; but I'm not sure it's in all ways the same to the extent that the Christian's worship must be identical to Abraham to be valid. Yes, indeed we could imitate the faith of Abraham - as the NT exhorts us; but even then, there are a few things that the patriarch could not have possibly entered into as being on the same basis as NT worship. Let me attempt to clarify this:

Melchizedek was the priest of the Most High God; but even so he was not operating the New and everlasting Covenant ratified by the Blood of Christ. The one thing (among several others) that Melchizedek could not do and could not have done in his high priestly office is to provide a way into the holy of holies (or the holiest of all) - for that alone waited for Christ to accomplish:

Heb 9:7-8  'But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing. . .

Heb 9:11-12 'But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.'

So, while Melchizedek was the priest of the Most High God in his day, isn't it remarkable that Abraham had direct access to God without having to gain that access through Melchzedek every time he communed with the LORD (apart from that one time we read of Melchizedek having met him in Genesis 14)? In fact, that is the only chapter in the entire OT where this priest is mentioned, and the other patriarchs had direct access to God up until the time of the Levitical priesthood for Israel. Point is that, no believer today has direct access to God as did Abraham; and every believer today has access to God through the high priesthood of Jesus alone:

Rom. 5:2  - By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Eph. 2:18 - For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph. 3:12 - In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Summary:
While there are some very interesting points in TayoD's post on this issue about Melchizedek, I'm not so sure as yet that everything in Melchizedek's priesthood has to stereotypically dictate that of Christ's priesthood. In the first place, we know very little about Melchizedek's priesthood and how it operated. All we can infer is that Christ's priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek's, but even more - it is superior in as much as Melchizedek's could not have perfected the conscience of the worshipper and could not lead such worshippers to into the most holy/holy of holies. Yes, we can imitate the faith of Abraham, but I'm not sure that the patriarch experienced NT worship in its rich essence as the Spirit conveys to us today.

In all, in as much as Abraham gave tithes (infact, the Bible says Levi, who was yet in his loins, "paid" tithes in Abraham - Heb. 7:9) of all, we could (not "must" imitate his faith thereto and enjoy the amazing grace of giving/paying tithes. I don't read in Scripture that tithes were encodified/incorporated into the Melchizedek priesthood; that's why I hitherto had not commented in substance on TayoD's post. But I trust that he meant well because he had earlier informed that most of what he posted were taken from Chris Okotie's book.

I enjoyed the challenges  in yours, TV01; and many blessings.

TayoD:

I await your response with all anticipation. And by the way, no escapist act is permitted from your person.

So, we all notice that there's usually an escapist act from the other side    

Why do Muslims really need to authenticate Islam by the Bible? On the one hand, they often argue that "My religion is mine; and your religion is yours", so where does Islam cross over to curry favour from a Book they often reject? On the other hand, is there anywhere where the Qur'an says that Muhammad was prophesied of in the Bible? If the Qur'an does not say so, where do Muslims often get the idea that Islam, Muhammad and some other Muslim ideologies are in the Bible? For instance, this gentleman called abdul fata wants us to see Islam in the Bible when he quotes Biblical texts for "Six Criteria for Hijab in Islam" and also does the same for the Kaa'ba by quoting Psa. 84:4-7.

abdul fata:

   
   (v)Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Bible.
       Al-Qur'an 7:157
       Al-Qur'an 61:6
       Deuteronomy 18:18
       Isaiah 29:12
       Song of Solomon 5:16
       John 16:7
       John 16:12-14
. . .
 
C. Significance of Kaaba – Muslims don’t worship it
    Psalms 84:4-7
. . .
     
(iii)  Six Criteria for Hijab in Islam
      Deuteronomy 22:5
      I Timothy 2:9 e.g. of Mary
      I Corinthians 11:5-6

So, where is this notion coming from that Islam appears in the Bible - is it that it can't stand on its own and so needs extra support outside the Qur'an in order to persuade people that Muhammad is actually a Prophet?  

This is why I have often wondered about Muslim reaction to discussions either in an open forum or elsewhere by other media. It's either that they suddenly call for an end to a thread; or where answers are no longer forth-coming from them, the easiest thing to do would be to either accuse others or deride them.

I don't know much about Islam and that's why I often take a peep to learn from either sides and read views, opinions, claims and/or counter-claims. For example, putting aside the US Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), since the Prophet Muhammad lived over 14 centuries earlier, I'm wondering how Muslims today would view the notion of an aged man (be it prophet, Imam, apostle, pastor, bishop, etc) getting married to a child! I still don't see the sane defence offered by Muslims for that event so far on the thread, and excuse me if I say that it's all been about conjectures and nothing more.

In which consequence, I'm still left wondering about this: would a Muslim man today consider marrying a 6 y.o. girl and having sex with her at age 9?? Or, would such a man give out his under-aged daughter to an elderly man to have sex with in good conscience? Why is that not pedophilia by any standard - whether in the past or present? And even so, why is it pedophilia at all - whether by "revelation" or Arab culture? How could a child be expected to be mature enough to make informed decisions about marriage at such a tender age?

All these are questions that I haven't read addressed by Muslims, and I hope that answers would be forth-coming.

Hi there again, TV01.

I'll try to make this simple. It seems to me that you've read 4get_me out of context as you've done on several issues about my rejoinder.

#1. The essence of Christian giving.
In both the OT and NT, the giving of God's people is quite "simple" (if that's what you hold onto), and to see it any other way is to complicate issues. Look again at the ingredients you listed:

simplicity

response to a need

motivated by love

an act of worship.

Which type of "giving" did not have all of these things - the OT or the NT?

That's why my response stands as is: my allusion to the meaninglessness of "simple giving" is in reference to your earlier quote that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less." You make it sound like the "simplicity" was absent in the OT. What you're emphasising and/or denying applies to either covenants, and it's of little consequence to see "simplicity" only in the NT without realising that the same thing applied in the OT. Now let me state it again: It is not a concern for people's needs that primarily forms the basis of our giving - it is rather an act of worship springing from the heart that is the foundation of every type of giving expressed in the Bible. The needs of people are only secondary and do not take precedence over the act of worship. If I got it wrong here, then show me from the Bible; there may be a few things that could be of mutual benefit to either of us.

#2. Degrees, Attitudes and Types in Giving
I didn't think you were actually agreeing with me about "types" of giving; yet, I'd offered that the "degree" you ascribed to giving falls in the same category of ritualizing it as you'd presumed with "types" of giving. If as you said, "Christians (simply) give. No more and no less", then what's the "degree" about the "simplicity" of the giving you're emphasizing? The very talk of "sacrifice" (which you alluded to as explaining the "degree" of giving) clearly brings about the various types of giving delineated in the NT among Christians. One should not need to see them as a "ritual" unless such a person is forcing that idea into the NT just because there are "types" of giving delineated there. So, I'd say that you shouldn't even have seen a "degree" of giving in the first place if you have a problem recognizing the "types" of giving outlined there.

#3. NT Types of Giving as Outlined in 4get_me's Post
When you click and take another look at 4get_me's helpful outline on the various types of giving in the NT, you'll find the essential thing is that he made reference to what was stated in the Bible and furnished his arguments with scripture text. You were more concerned about his personal views than what he pointed out from the Bible, which is a bit surprising to me. Question is: how do you fault his piece in reference to what he pointed out from the Scriptures? For example, in distinguishing one "type" of giving from another, would you say that "alms" [Gk. eleēmosunē - Matt. 6:3-4] is the very same thing as the Worship Collections/Offerings in I Cor. 16:2?

What 4get_me said is of great import to me, and that's why I agreed with him as far as his points were lucid and Scripturally valid. That he offered a "personal" touch to the issue of tithing in his post is a beautiful consistency you shouldn't have missed, because tithing or even other types of giving is not an issue one forces on others. Even 2 Cor. 9:7 does not enforce "giving" on anyone, and one can't fail to see the same touch of a personal commitment in what the apostle there said: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

If you don't agree with 4get_me, that's quite another thing - but, at least, I expected you would have pointed out from the Bible itself how he got it mixed up. I didn't see that in your response, so I don't know what to make of your concern thereto.

#4 Style of Jacob Than Abraham
This is a mute point, but what exactly do you mean by this in your statement: "And at best it’s more in the style of Jacob than Abraham." If you're inferring that Abraham's heart-felt response to offer tithes was any different from Jacob's healt felt response to do the same, you've got a load of issues to resolve in the Genesis account. Forgive me if I read you wrong, but I don't see any point in such remarks.

#5 Full Circle With Tithe
Your Quote: Simply put, nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate. doesn't that bring us full circle?

I don't understand you. One minute you were up in arms against tithes, the next you're seeming to imply that it's not to be abrogated?? I don't think you come full circle with your statements.

#6 The Lord's Priesthood and Melchisedec
Now you have me more quizzed than ever. I'd have appreciated a simple: "Oh, yes - the High Priesthood of The Lord is fashioned after Melchizedek’s", and that would have said it all. But your recent statement even yet contradicts what you stated earlier after disagreeing with TayoD's. Compare:

TV01:

So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s.

. . . and just recently -

Suffice to say, my point was that the High Priesthood of the Lord is akin to Melchizedek’s, in it’s being eternal.

That being so, even if Abraham responded by faith in that act of offering tithes of all to Melchizedek without a divine ordinance, are we not to follow in his steps and emulate his example? I don't remember having used Abraham's act of offering tithes as a divine ordinance for NT believers in the matter of tithes, have I? My position has been: you cannot legislate about the issue of tithes with an OT text where it is not expressly forbidden in the NT. Using the Law of Moses as the rule for judging tithes in the NT misses the point.

C'mon now, belloti. lol

Why is it that Muslims are always quick to call for an end to a discussion or thread about Islam and Muhammad or the Qur'an?

I often feel that it perhaps has to do with Muslims not having sufficient answers to questions arising from the discussion. . .??

sweetnini's entry says it all for me, though: firstly, secondly, thirdly and lastly - they don't have anything in common.

BTW, what really is Muhammad - a messenger, an apostle, or a prophet? Or. . . maybe he's just all three of them and some of my Muslim friends just don't know the difference between them?

Good to read about your concerns as well, TV01. Yet let me point out a few things that you probably failed to see:

TV01:

What would prompt you to call "simple giving" meaningless? The only question I see is one of degrees (and attitude chapter 9:6-7, appended below), not types? To assign types to giving is to ritualise it. Do I read you correctly as implying “giving is an end in itself”? I fail to see why this would be necessary. Neither was I be implying that God does not take it seriously, just how simple and uncluttered the outworking of faith and love are.

First, my allusion to the meaninglessness of "simple giving" is in reference to your earlier quote that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less." That sounds like divesting NT giving of its divine significance and almost makes no meaning of a matter of great import. Glad to read also that you recognise that giving is an act of worship; so then the talk of giving as merely nothing more and nothing is less is to sound like even that act of worship is meaningless. It were better to have recognised the significance of NT giving in its connection to worship and not to have sounded like it was just an empty exercise.

Second, to now refer to giving in the NT in terms of "degrees" and "attitude" is to confirm my point as that there are different "types" of NT giving. In fact, in this connection of the various types and contexts of giving, 4get_me has done a very good job earlier in his outline on this (preview by clicking here and scroll down to the 600th entry), and I agree with him on that. This is not to "ritualise" NT giving; and if anything at all, to see "degrees" of giving in the NT is to ritualise a simple act of worship in this connection as well. As surely as there are 'degrees' of giving, there are 'types' as well; and if the latter is a tendency to ritualise it, then the former is equally guilty of ritualising it as well.

Giving is not an end in itself - and my reply earlier didn't suggest that at all. It is connected with our act of worship, and that was the tenor of my piece. The ingredients of NT giving you mentioned ("simple and uncluttered the outworking of faith and love" were no less present in the OT. In both dispensations, whatever passed out of the hands and hearts of believers mattered to God and were regarded by Him as part of their worship - and in both eras they were carried out in simplicity, with faith and love. So, there's no ritual in that act of worship unless for the sake of argument you want to read that into it.

TV01:

Both the Sabbath and circumcision predate the Law and where to be everlasting covenants. They where also incorporated into Mosaic law. But the NT makes it clear that such rituals avail nothing (Colossians 2:16, Galatians 5:6 & 6:15) as all these former practises prefigure (and are fulfilled in) Christ and are types/shadows of spiritual realities. I think I amply showed (or should I say that 2 Corinthians 8/9 does), that giving is a grace.

If you'd carefully read your response in those lines it would be apparent to you that you didn't take anything away from my point. Tithes preceded and was later incorporated into the Law. My point: you cannot therefore use the Law as the prism for scrutinizing and nullifying what preceded it especially in regards to tithes. God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him; the patriarch spontaneously gave tithes of all to the priest of the Most High God after the latter pronounced the blessings and ascribed praise to God. Abraham's response to Melchizedek's pronouncements is an act of devotion by faith and love - yes?

Sabbath and circumcision - I knew you'd bring those up, but the issue is that you don't ignore their significance even in the NT. Notice that the practise of both injunctions were outward and formal as stipulated by the Law; but the intrinsic value of either seems to be lost in your argument.

God gave the circumcision to Abraham as a sign of practical obedience in connection to His covenant with him and his generation (Gen. 17:11-14). Later on it was incorporated into the Law (Lev. 12:3) and its meaning was hinted at in Deut. 10:16 - "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." So, we see that an uncircumcised heart is a pointer to a a rebellious/stiffnecked heart.

Yet, even in the Law, God made sure that circumcision was not an end in itself, for it pointed to something that was much more than the mere outward practise which God Himself would perform in the hearts of believers: "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deut. 30:6). Before even the New Covenant was ratified, every student of the OT scriptures knew that circumcision had a spiritual significance, and this is borne out in Rom. 2:28-29 - "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Now, if the import of circumcision was properly one that was "of the heart, in the spirit" even under the Old Covenant, is that not the very thing that God accomplished in the NT? For in Col 2:11 we read - "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." The question is: does circumcision hold true in the NC? I offer that it actually does - in its proper context and significance as long as the meaning is not lost. The only difference is that NT circumcision is "made without hands" and points to an inward operation - that of the heart and in the spirit. In any case, circumcision has its place in the NT - the outward practice avails nothing for those who seek it as a means to please God, while the NT significance qualifies what has been said in the OT (Deut. 10:16 & 30:6) as well as the NT (Rom. 2:28-29).

Pretty much the same thing can be advanced for the NT view of the Sabbath, which in summary is captured in Heb 4:4, 10 - "For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. . . For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

TV01:

I was hoping that at some stage we would move on to discussing the outworking of Christian giving and tithing in this age. But one thing apparent, is that some see the tithe as a spiritual thing transcending the covenants, and it such it stands alone and is still in force. I for one find that hard to marry with what I see as NT practise. Maybe it would help is someone could show some other precept/principle which is similarly applicable/treated.

Just like I said in one of my posts in this thread, you cannot legislate about the issue of tithes with an OT text where it is not expressly forbidden in the NT. At least, we are clear in the NT concerning the issue of the Sabbath and circumcision - they are not held to be outward practices today, but that does not mean that their significance should be ignored. Yet, you cannot treat tithing in just the same manner, for the simple reason that even in the texts you offered earlier (Col. 2:16; Gal. 5:6 & 6:15) you will not find it stated that "tithing availeth nothing". I offer that if God wanted to do away with tithes, then we would have seen that clearly stated, or at least alluded to in the NT. So, my question is: Where in the NT is tithing abrogated?

Regards.

@Gwaine,

Gwaine:

It would have been great if syrup had showed up to confirm that I've tried to share
the references with her by email after she left me an offline. I haven't heard from
her but hope that she's got some answers. This is why I don't agree with your
statement that I was being queer in responding to syrup's enquiry; and I'm not
in any way attempting what you're suggesting.

Thank you for your patience and for sending me the info about my request - quite illuminating and I understand why you see these matters as "sensitive" (although I wouldn't suppose it would be a big deal afterall). I just wanted to confirm that I've received your mail, and could not have been on the forum earlier as I was very busy with loads of other things. Thank you again, and please keep in touch.

There are a few things I'd like to point out in earlier replies:

TV01:

NT Christians give, nothing more and nothing less. It is always according to one’s hearts desire and expected as a normal part of the Christian life, particularly as one grows in grace. Giving is actually a spiritual grace in direct contradistinction to tithing, which is a work, based on the law of a fleshly commandment. 2 Corinthians 8-9 expounds this beautifully.

To state that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less" makes even the giving as meaningless as a blank paper. The Bible takes seriously any type of "giving" by God's people, whether in the OT or NT, and there are lots of texts showing that there is a divine significance to whatever passes from our hands and hearts for the Lord's cause.

Tithing preceded "the Law of a fleshly commandment", and if it is disavowed by those who read it only in connection with the Mosaic Law, then even the NT "giving" is not a spiritual grace at all but also a work-based theology cloaked in the lingo of grace.

TV01:

I maintain my position that there are no “Messengers” of God within (running) the local assembly. The NT nowhere requires funds for the running of a church organisation. In scripture, money only ever moved  in response to physical need of the brethren. Nothing else.

It is not a concern for people's needs that primarily forms the basis of our giving - it is rather an act of worship springing from the heart that is the foundation of every type of giving expressed in the Bible. The needs of people are only secondary and do not take precedence over the act of worship. So, money does not only ever moved in response to physical need of the brethren. If that is all we see in the matter of Christian "giving" in the NT, then even giving in itself would be an empty ritual, a meaningless necessity, and a beggarly practice.


Now this is interesting:

TayoD:

There is no change of the Priesthood in this case. The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek. So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.

TV01:

TayoD link=topic=272.msg445075#msg445075 date=1150998772:

There is no change of the Priesthood in this case. The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek. So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.

Even in Hebrews, more space is devoted to the shadow pattern of the Aaronic priesthood.  Both Aaron & Melchizedek’s priesthoods are symbolic. So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s.

So, in summary:

TayoD:
The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.

TV01:
So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s.

Well, what I can say is, Yes indeed, the High Priesthood of the Lord IS fashioned/patterned after the order of Melchisedec according to the explicit declaration of Scripture! See the following:

"As he saith also in another place, Thou [i.e., Jesus Christ] art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 5:6).

"Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 5:10).

"Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 6:20).

"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 7:15-17).

"For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb 7:21).

The moment you take your eyes off the Scriptures, a fine argument will weave into a denial of what God's Word says. It always helps to stay with the express declaration in a text than what we think God is saying. I imagine that the reason for this inspired repetition and emphasis half a dozen times is so we don't miss the point that the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus is indeed fashioned after the order of Melchisedec!

TV01:

Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of the spoils” on one occassion. There is nothing to suggest this was a recurring devotional practice. No mention of it in the life of the heirs with him (Isaac & Jacob) of the promise.

Even before the Mosaic Law, the fact that the patriarchs thought of tithes ("a tenth" in whatever form should make us understand that it was an act of devotion to God indeed. In Abraham's case it was said: "And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all." (Gen. 14:20). The first part of that verse (and reading from vs. 19) shows that there was a clear devotional portion involved. Abraham didn't just give tithes to Melchizedek, for the former gave the tithes only after the latter had pronounced the blessings/praise to God.

Not only that, but Levi who was yet in the loins of Abraham paid tithes as well through the patriarch: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." (Heb 7:9-10).

Again, in Gen. 28:22 we read of Jacob's vow unto the LORD: "And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." Notice that Jacob was in communion with God when he mentioned the vow of tithes (even though we don't read afterwards that he fulfilled his vow). The point is that tithing was a recognized act of devotion to the LORD in the lives and experiences of the patriarchs even before the Mosaic Law was enacted. The Law incorporated what preceded it and could not have nullified the practice afterwards when it was set aside for the Melchizedek/Melchisedec priesthood in Christ. Tithing preceded the Law, and it was recognized as a significant part of the devotion of the patriarchs in communion with God.

I'm fascinated by the proposal of tying "blessing" to the act of tithing in Heb 7:7-8: "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." That is significant, for indeed Abraham received blessing when he gave tithes to the Priest of the Most High God (Heb 7:6 - "But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises".

The whole argument that supposes that tithing was only connected with the Law is weak, because before the Law the practice of tithing was well known among the patriarchs and only came to be incorporated into the Law of Moses for Israel. Thus, it could not afterwards weaken this practice after it was set aside; and that is why to quote Heb. 7:12 ("For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law" as proof that tithing is no longer relevant is to miss the essence of what preceded the Law. Not everything begins and ends with the Law, and it should not be so used to hold down a devotional practice that preceded it.

nferyn,

There's nothing prudent about a position that tries to hold that everything must be natural where clearly there are phenomena that cannot be explicated by naturalistic terms, or they would long ago have been so explicated. You keep saying that you have no idea what I'm talking about simply because you have no idea of what "spirituality" and "the supernatural" are. "We don't know" is more respectable for the skeptic to admit than an outright denial about what exists. If everything is to be communicated by the language of natural science, why has it been ever so perplexing for the natural scientist to explain the supernatural even when he cannot deny it?

"I AM THAT I AM" has been explained - and it is not void of information, unless you just want to hold on to that notion because you still will come back to tell me you don't understand what I am talking about.

Seun's reasoning is not logical - how do you accuse someone who doesn't exist? For the accusation to have any value is to suggest that such a being exists, albeit Seun finds him to be "horrible". And if you insist his reasoning is logical by deducing qualities of God out of His characteristics, you perhaps might care enough to tell me how it is possible to deduce qualities of a being who you believe to not exist? There again, it's more a matter of quality than of outright denial of His existence. Or, you might have to come back with a denial of His existence where you cannot possibly talk about His qualities and characteristics. It just doesn't operate both ways: it's either He does not exist and thus describing Him as "horrible" then does not arise; or He actually exists but you don't like to believe in Him.

Now I'm surprised that you'd confirm my suspicion that anything (and perhaps everything) must be subjected to the natural faculties. Then it is not in my place to explain what the supernatural is to a person who will see no more than the natural. Whether or not you understand the concepts of spirit and spirituality, you cannot demand that supernatural phenomena be submitted to natural laws, or you would have been able to provide an explanation for what you still don't have answers to.

What I'm getting at is this: there are issues that are clearly inexplicable by "natural" deductions - they lie outside the natural laws. Let me offer you two examples outside my Christian position: levitation and telekinesis. Natural scientists have not been able to explain the "natural laws" of levitation because it is not subject to the physical law of gravity. To deny that levitation is a real phenomenon outside the explanations of natural science is to assume a weak position. Again, how do you scientifically explain "mind-reading" - telling the thoughts of someone else? Please don't even try to explain it away under the excuse that science is growing up to explain that. What scientific laws exist to explain these phenomena?

These are just a few examples outside my Christian principles, for Christianity does not deny their reality. They may not be very strong examples unlike more involving events in the paranormal and spiritism; but what I have just attempted is to make you understand that if everything is to be explained by natural faculties, why is it taking forever for you, at least, to explain these issues "naturally"? That's why I agree with you that "we don't know" is a more respectable response from the skeptic than to demand that everything be subjugated to the natural faculty. Supra-natural phenomena are not explained naturally, otherwise you would have been able to provide an explanation by the deductions of natural science for what lies outside its purview.

@nferyn,
Until you come up with something new, this would be a meaningless exercise for both of us. You're going round again and again, so I'll try and make things a bit easier.

Granted that you now see the issue with 4get_me was not about definition of God, but about atheism. Even so, what you hold to be atheism is not shared by many atheists, and that's why I suggested that the goalpost shifting you see in theism is actually closer home with atheism. As far as I'm concerned, there was no strawman in his reply just before you left off, because he actually showed how atheists themselves are the ones defining the concept of atheism that differ from yours.

Then, I've stated that God is spoken of in other religions than Christianity, but if the claims in those religious movements do not hold true, I do not deny the fact of the religion in question, but I don't anchore my faith there. If in my experience I find the claims of God contrary to His declarative "I AM THAT I AM", then I would have no basis to believe in Him. Example: He says He is good and blesses those who seek Him by faith. If I find Him to be 'evil' instead of 'good' even after having followed that requirement, then it stands to reason that I find to my shock He is "horrible". This does not presuppose a denial of His existence, but rather a concern about His quality.

What you might have been enquiring in my response to Seun's post is about existence; but I'd corrected that while it apparently seems so, it is more a matter of qualities acribed to Him. How do you accuse a non-existent being if not somehow presupposing that He exists? There are two statements in my reply to his: the first is an attempt to show that his assertions are not substantiated by his accusations; the second is to the effect that his claims do not justify the non-existence of God. What then? The first is about the qualities ascribed to God to make it easy to allege that evil is to be found in Him, thus suggesting that He is "horrible". Just because there are statements about (non)existence of God does not mean that the central concern about qualities ascribed to Him should lose their significance.

Shared communication goes both ways, and you just cannot demand that spiritual/supernatural issues be explicated otherwise than by terms of spirituality; otherwise it no longer becomes spiritual. Think about it: I don't understand everything about science, but that does not make scientific realities non-existent: and for me to deny them simply because the scientist is not using spiritual terminologies is to fall victim to the same thing you're doing. The supernatural is not inferior to the natural, and the natural scientist who insists that the supernatural should cower under naturalistic terminologies is playing chief over an issue he knows nothing about.

Good that you're not denying the supernatural - and what does that mean to you?

Even then, I'm not projecting - I know a lot of skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own positions and I alluded to that in general terms. If you don't fall within that delineation, no need to react as though you do.

Second, I don't know what to make out from your position. On the one hand, you're not denying the supernatural; and on the other hand you want to defend a skeptic who denies it ("He rejects the claim of that phenomenon being supernatural". If the "many dimensions of reality that are hard for us humans to detect or understand" are "not any less natural", why is it taking the scientific world forever to determine, detect and explicate them?

Lastly, you come back to the same excuse you've always held as a lifesaver in issues like this (and that is a little frail by now). I'm not "closing off an area of investigation to natural enquiry by definition" - simply because you don't understand the supernatural is by no means grounds for you to think that it must be a "natural enquiry by definition". If the supernatural is simply natural by definition, why does it continue to perplex the scientific community who by now ought to have detected it as such? You don't determine everything about the realities of all phenomena on just naturalistic explications - to do so is untenable; and to insist that it is so will only lead to denial where the enquirer is himself asked to explain what undeniably exists.