₦airaland Forum

@Image123,

I said this:

Being baptised with the Holy Spirit occurs when one is born again.But it is not automatic or a must that one must speak in tongues when baptised with the Holy Spirit.One can be baptised with the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues.That is obvious in:

Act 8:35  Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

The Eunuch became born again and definitely was baptized with the Holy Spirit before the water baptism took place.There is no record of him breaking into tongues.
I just said this because some people believe that it is a must for a born again person to break into tongues once he is baptised with the Holy Spirit.

and you said this:

Is this true?you believe this?Well,I do not condemn you but this is wrong,you need to grow in knowledge.Like I said earlier,speaking in tongues is not the big deal.We could argue and teach and know all about it,its not near having the experience.We could know all the right things about it,but its never the same with the experience.If you had the experience,you will know

The indication or implication of what u're saying is that for every person who becomes born again, he must break into tongues speaking.
My explanation above says this is not always the case.
Your assertion implies that if a person becomes born again and does not break into tongues at that time,it means he isn't born again.
That is wrong.
That is why I used the Eunuch experience to point out that fact.

I said when the Eunuch got born again,he was definitely baptised with the Holy Ghost.You higlighted the definitely;indicating ur doubt about that fact.
Based on that,I'll assume ur understanding is that the baptism of the Holy Ghost must be accompanied by tongues speaking.
Ur understanding then indicates that the Eunuch was not baptized with the Holy Ghost on getting born again.

But look at 1 Corinthians 12:13

1 Corinthians 12:13
13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,whether we be Jews or gentiles,whether we be bond or free:and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

When we become born again,we become part of the body of Christ.But how is this possible?
By the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
As we become born again/attain salvation through Christ/born of the Spirit, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place.

This is very evident in:

Ephesians 1:13
13. In whom ye also trusted,after that ye have heard the word of truth,the gospel of your salvation:in whom also after ye believed,ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise

Remember,the ministry of Jesus Christ was/is the ministry of the Spirit; the whole issue about being born again is about being baptized of the Holy Spirit;being born of the Spirit.This can be understood from:

Matthew 3:11
11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

So you see,the Eunuch was definitely baptized with the Holy Spirit when he believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ/got born again.And we can see that he did not break forth into tongues speaking when that occurred.

dgreatrock:
So why are we all not adding the prefix eg saint ttalk to our names as a title?

Because we are not asked to in the bible.Just like we are not supposed to put Pastor this or Pastor that in any ministers' names.
Being a saint is a state and not a title.The term Pastor is not a title as is being used widely today,but rather,it is a position of authority/responsibility in the church.
In the Christian world,we are to be addressed simply by our names or with the use of brother or sister.
There isn't any point in the bible that any of the people of God were addressed as Pastor this,Prophet that,or apostle this and that.
Or saint this or that.

According to the bible,a saint is simply a believer.So, living people can be saints.

1Corinth 13:1  Though I speak with the[b] tongues of men and of angels[/b], and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1Corinth 14:2  For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

@image123

The tongues here(1 Corinthian 13:1) refer to both tongues of men and angels;not just tongues of angels.
The fact that it was mentioned that "no man understandeth him"(1 Corinthians 14:2) does not mean that the tongues could not be understood/interpreted by any man;that was limited to the immediate gathering where the tongues were being uttered.That was why Paul advised that it was better that we prophesy than speak in tongues that people in the immediate gathering would not understand which would not edify anyone but the speaker.

There is nothing like tongues of angels among men.If u read the whole of 1 Corinthians 13,u'll see that most of the things stated were said to buttress a point;it did not mean that those things could be done.For example:

1Co 13:1  Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1Co 13:2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3  And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Paul mentioned speaking the tongues of angels but did not mean he coud speak it.
He mentioned understandng all mysteries and all knowledge but did not understand all mysteries and all knowledge.
He mentioned giving his body to be burned, but we know he never did this.

All those points were mentioned to buttress a point.
They were "What if" statements.

Look at the same portion in the CEV Bible:

1Co 13:1  What if I could speak all languages of humans and of angels? If I did not love others, I would be nothing more than a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1Co 13:2  What if I could prophesy and understand all secrets and all knowledge? And what if I had faith that moved mountains? I would be nothing, unless I loved others.
1Co 13:3  What if I gave away all that I owned and let myself be burned alive? I would gain nothing, unless I loved others.

Now on gift of tongues,I said earlier that it is different from the initial experience of speaking in tongues after the baptism of the Spirit.It is more frequent.It is a gift.Everybody that is baptised in the Spirit speaks with/in tongues at first but not all continue.

Being baptised with the Holy Spirit occurs when one is born again.But it is not automatic or a must that one must speak in tongues when baptised with the Holy Spirit.One can be baptised with the Holy Spirit and not speak in tongues.That is obvious in:

Act 8:35  Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

The Eunuch became born again and definitely was baptized with the Holy Spirit before the water baptism took place.There is no record of him breaking into tongues.
I just said this because some people believe that it is a must for a born again person to break into tongues once he is baptised with the Holy Spirit.

dgreatrock:
You dont believe there is someone who holds a personal portfolio of BISHOP OF THE WHOLE WORLD?
please see page 53 of today's vanguard.

What I am saying is that such a claim or a title is false.There is nothing like bishop of the whole world or no. 1 Chistian in the world in the bible.

Are u going to say something on sainthood?

Maybe u should first define sainthood or saint(s) from the bible because I see u ask:"Can a living person claim sainthood?"

As for the rest of the post,there is nohing like Bishop of the whole world and there is nothing like no. 1 Christian in the world.

I believe this article is very helpful in understanding this issue:

Women in Ministry

Women are Equal Partakers of Grace:

It is important to start this important article with the truth that women are equal partakers of God's grace in Christ. Women are not inferior to men in anyway and suffer from no disadvantages in terms of access to God and the distribution of His blessings.

Galatians 3: 26-29
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Women are partakers of salvation same as men. The Holy Spirit is given to women same as men:

Acts 2:17,18
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

Roles and Responsibilities

While women share equally in the salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the question of roles and responsibilities is a different matter. We shall examine what roles and responsibilities are spelt out for women in the writings of the apostles, the foundation-layers of the Church. We shall also examine the available examples mentioned in the book of Acts and in the epistles.

Women may not teach or exercise authority over men in the Church

In 1 Timothy, a letter written to give instructions with regards the running of the Church, Paul lays down God's order in the Church:

1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The things contained in 1 Timothy are general instructions about church order. There is much to be gleaned from this letter.

So, what are some of these things he wrote to Timothy on how we are to conduct ourselves in Church?

1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Points to note:

1. Paul referred to the order of creation and of responsibility divided to man and woman: man as leader, and woman as helper.

2. Paul referred to human nature to support his teaching regarding women. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). The woman has a different makeup than the man. She was designed for a different role in life - that of helper, supporter, wife and mother. Her emotional, psychological, and rational makeup are geared perfectly for this, but she was not designed for leadership. In the garden of Eden the devil deceived her. This was not true for Adam. He sinned, but not as a result of being deceived. Adam simply submitted to Eve usurping authority. Of course, that made his sin grievous. Eve had allowed herself to be thrust into a position of decision-making which she had not been given.

Some have supposed that in 1 Timothy, Paul mentioned Adam and Eve means that he was talking about husband and wife. But it is plain that is not so. In 1 Timothy 2:11-14, the Bible's reference to "man", "woman", "Adam", and "Eve" is a reference to God's order. That order is the order of leader and follower (not of husband and wife). Take a look:

Genesis 2:18
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

The woman was created to fulfill a supportive or complementary role to man. In God's plans, man is the lead actor. All through the Old Testament, God appointed men to leadership positions e.g. prophets, judges, priests, and kings. In the New Testament, we see a continuation of this practice.

To argue that the command does not apply to unmarried women would be illogical still even if we examine it from the natural standpoint. The implication would be that more mature, more dignified, more respected married women would not be permitted to exercise authority over men in Church, while independent-minded, younger, and often less mature women would be permitted to do so? Judge this yourself, and it is clear that there is something wrong with that line of thought.

Still on 1 Timothy 2, people have claimed that when Paul said, ", I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence", he was referring to husband and wife; not just man and woman. This argument is based on the fact that the Greek word gune is used interchangeably for "woman" and "wife", and the context determines which is which. The same goes for the words "man" and "husband", which are both derived from the same Greek word aner.

But note that in the writings of Paul and the other apostles, a distinction is always made when the subject has to do with husband and wife instead of a comparison of roles between man and woman.

In Ephesians 5:22-33, it is written, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands [literally your own men], as unto the Lord" (verse 22).

In 1 Peter 3: 1-7, it is written, "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands" (verse 1).

1 Corinthians 7:2, it is written, ", let every man have his own wife [literally his own woman], and let every woman have her own husband [literally her own man]".

Note the personalisation involved in these cases, i.e. his own, her own, etc - making it clear that in these scenarios the marital relationship is in view. Elsewhere in which this personalisation is not in view, except there is any other reason to believe otherwise, the scenario is about the roles of man and woman in creation.

Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2 are not restrictive to a marital relationship and are just as valid for unmarried as well as married women.
The instructions for the appointment of elders/pastors/overseers/bishops address men alone

Furthermore, all instructions concerning the appointment of elders (pastors; ministers) and deacons in the church are clearly directed at men:

1 Timothy 3:1-12
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; {given, : or, ready to quarrel, and offer wrong, as one in wine}
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. {a novice: or, one newly come to the faith}
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Important point: verse 5 draws a comparison between authority in the church and authority at home: "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"

The above passage totally excludes women from serving as authority figures in the church.

Women are Partakers of the manifestations of the Spirit

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul did mention that women pray and prophesy. Is it logical for him to say that, and then turn around a few chapters later to forbid them from teaching and preaching?

Paul's reference in 1 Corinthians 11:5 to women praying and prophesying does not in any way contradict his instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 that they keep silence in church meetings. It simply means that they may exercise their spiritual giftings so long as it is not done as an exercise of authority.

Acts 2:17,18
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

Acts 21:8-11
8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Phillips daughters were used by the Lord to prophesy. The gifts of the Spirit are available to both men and women. The line, once again, is drawn were exercise of authority over men is in the picture.

When God wanted to give a divine word to Paul, he did not do so through any of the 4 daughters of Philips, but sent a prophet from another town.

While women are fully partakers of salvation and God's grace, and have also been endued with the Holy Spirit, there are clear restrictions on the exercise of these giftings. Philip's daughters prophesied, but there is no record that they did it in any way to instruct or teach the congregation, or that they exercised it over men in any way. The Bible also makes the distinction that they were different from the office of prophet in the next verse.

Examples of Old Testament prophetesses indicate that they did not teach publicly or exercise authority over men.

1. OT prophetesses include: Deborah, Miriam, and Anna. The functions of the OT prophetess was different from those of the prophets (male). No OT prophetess exercised authority. They did not preach, teach and rebuke as the prophets did. This is true in all instances. You may want to take a look at the story of Deborah in Judges 4:4-9.

2. Note also that while Anna was physically in the temple, her interactions with Jesus' family were not during a formal gathering, but were done in private and did not include the exercise of authority.

Luke 2:36-38
36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Anna did not preach, teach or exercise any form of authority. She simply acknowledged what the Lord had done and gave thanks. And there was no public meeting in session. It was a private affair.

Women are to minister in charity, and teach other women and children

Titus 2:3-5
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Timothy 2:15
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

We see that God's order is that women keep the home front. Women may also teach other women and children in Church settings.

Examples of Women who Served in the early Church

Acts 18:26
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Romans 16:1-3
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

These women, Phebe, Priscilla and others Paul mentioned elsewhere served faithfully in the local churches, helping the saints in Biblically defined ways.

Is God Biased Against Women?

A sister once asked me if this does not mean that God is biased against women. My asnwer was and is: No; it presents God as organised. Roles are an evidence of intelligence and organiation, not bias.

Conclusion

The Bible speaks too clearly on this subject for there to be any confusion. The problem is that churches too often are looking to sources other than the Bible for guidance. God loves women as much as He does men. Women are as important to the home, church, and society as men are. In Jesus Christ, women enjoy the same spiritual position and blessings before God as men do. This does not mean, though, there is to be no difference in men and women in their appearance and roles. There is a basic truth which needs to be restated in the church and society today: Men and women are different!

As someone has said, a woman who orders her life according to the Word of God is a crown jewel to her husband, an adorable and tender mother to her children, and a blessing and a benediction to her community, church and pastor.

Men and women were made for different roles. The New Testament affirms that men are to be the leaders in the home and in the church. Women were not created to rule these divine institutions; men were.


Source: www.pressingforthecrown.org/women-in-ministry.html

chukwudi44:
@bobbyaff,

Are u trying to say that God did not see anybody to use among the true christians during the collation of the bible or is is that they simple didn't exist by then.

I am more interested in the hypocrisy contained in the teachings of you proptestants.You peaple say infant baptism is wrong because the kids can't speak for themselves,yet you do take your own kids to your differant churches.

why don't you allow them get up to eighteen years before they can decide whether to go to church or not

Next you people claimed catholics were selling salvation through the sale of indulgences.Today you people preach tithes as necessary for salvation.

Tithing that was jewish rite done once every year(for your family) or every three years(for levites ,orphans,widows and strangers),it never involved money nor was it done every month.Today your greedy pot bellied pastors insist it must be paid every month.using the bible please explain to me how you arrived at monetary and monthly tithing

Tithing is no longer needed for todays salvation ,if you don't agree show me any where in the new testament where Jesus or any of his disciples paid or received tithes.people freely sold thier belongings and laid them at the apostles feet which they shared as everyone had need for it.Ananias and his wife only had to die because they told a lie concerning the value of the property sold.

About your campaign against the RCC my advice forv you is leave the church alone .Allow God to fight his battle.I would close with the word of gamaliel in acts 5

If the teachings of the RCC are of men .it will come to naught,but if it be of God you will not be able to overthrow it,you might even find bur self fighting against God

Chukwudi,

One thing u should know is that when talking about protestants, u can't group them all under one system of belief.This is because they don't all believe or practice the same things.

You talked about protestants promoting tithe paying. Not all protestants believe that paying of tithes is necessary. Some do believe it's necessary and push for it with all vigor.
In so many areas;such as the understanding of Christ's purpose in our lives, the issues of prosperity, the issue of the Holy Spirit, the proper interpretation of certain portions of the bible,the blood of Jesus, etc. ,there are so much disparities in their beliefs.
So u cannot class all protestants under one umbrella in ur analogies.

As regards what u said about Gamaliel's comment; it was just a comment or advice from Gamaliel; a Pharisee. His position cannot be taken as regards issues of faith(except for the fact that we cannot compel anybody by force to follow a particular faith or shun another) because it completely opposes God's position which is: we should speak up against false doctrines,teachers and faiths.
God does not want us to sit down and look when evil or false doctrines are being propagated; he expects us to speak up against them.
Jude 1:3-4, Titus 1:10-16,Romans 16:17-18,Philipians 3:17-19,etc.

For the fact that u too are speaking up against false practices in some protestant churches show that u too are not following Gamaliel's advice.So, don't give an advice that u wouldn't follow urself.

Dude I asked you a question, you siad you would answer so please answer.

Does the Bible say we should go by scripture ALONE?

Now not to be redundant but I already provided that for Bobbyaf

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

So you see we should go by what they said not just what they wrote. Not everything they said was written was it?

sigh!

@lady,

This is all I will be saying here.

The answer u seek is already in the verse u quoted above:

2Thessalonians 2:15
(15)  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I can't imagine why u can't see that the verse above is asking to hold unto one particular thing/message; not different things,but different mediums of communication(by word or our epistle).
It simply means that the same message;communicated by word or by letters(epistles),have to be held unto.It doesn't mean that the message delivered by the differing mediums differ in one way or the other;or that the medium used introduces different stuff from the other medium.
Which simply takes us back to what we've been saying all along that any tradition called Christian must be supported 100% by the bible.Anything not supported or backed by the bible is false.
And a lot of Catholic tradition have been found wanting by the bible.They've all been stated one way or another through Bobbyafs thread.

Conclusion:
Scripture alone is perfectly fine cos we are assured that it contains all we need and also contains everything which was taught orally by the apostles(2 thessalonians 2:15).

@babs787

Please in what way is Jesus like Jonah?

I believe the verses quoted; Matthew 12:39-41 and Luke 11:30-32, have shown the relationship or similarities between Jonah's experience and Jesus'.

If someone didnt die when crucified, would you still say that person was crucified?

I have no idea why this question is being asked. But if it's a way to say Christ didn't die on the cross when crucified, the bible has this to say:

John 19:30
(30)  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Luke 23:46
(46)  And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Mark 15:37
(37)  And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Mat 27:50
(50)  Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Christ himself even confirmed his death and resurrection by himself in:

Rev 1:10-18
(10)  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
(11)  Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
(12)  And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
(13)  And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
(14)  His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(15)  And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
(16)  And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
(17)  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18)  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

If anybody believes the accounts of Jonah as described by the bible, why on earth will they not believe the accounts of Jesus' death as described by the bible? 

It's only if one does not believe the accounts of the bible that we should declare that there isn't any point arguing or debating about this issue.

Hell is real and has a two sided description:
1. Hell is the place of the dead, the departed souls. It is called hades, sheol or the grave in the different translations of the bible.
2. Also, hell is refered to as the place of punishment for the wicked after they die.

The good people go to the place of the departed souls while the wicked go to the place of torment/punishment.

This is evident in:

Acts 2:31
(31)  He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

- the hell here refers to the place of the departed souls; Hades,where the good go when they die.

Luke 16:20-23
(20)  And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
(21)  And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
(22)  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
(23)  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

- the hell here refers to the part where the wicked go; a place of torment.

Hell is a place with two sides: the place for the good/righteous departed souls who await the 2nd coming of Christ; and the place of torment for the wicked departed souls.   
So, it is safe to conclude that there is a place for the righteous in hell and a place for the wicked in hell.
This is evident in:

Luke 16:19-26
(19)  There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
(20)  And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
(21)  And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
(22)  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
(23)  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
(24)  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
(25)  But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
(26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

The place of the righteous is seperated from the place of the wicked by a great gulf. Hence, the same place but seperated so that one side is a place of comfort while the other is a place of torment.

This defeats the theory of the word of faith teachers that say Christ went to hell to be tormented before he resurrected.Christ was in the righteous part of Hell(Sheoul,Hades);the place of the good departed souls, he was never in the place of torment.


Also, Hell is not the Lake of Fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Hell is the place of the first and normal death for humans;righteous and wicked; each having their designated portions: either comfortable or tormented. The lake of fire is the 2nd death which is only available to the wicked(those whose names are not found in the book of life); the righteous(those in the book of life) in the comfortable part of hell get the completeness of salvation.
This is evident in:

Revelation 20:13-15
(13)  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
(14)  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
(15)  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

"Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire" as shown above; clearly showing that hell is not the same thing as the lake of fire.

So, what the wicked should be expecting is a two fold punishment; one in the torment portion of hell and then the second in the lake of fire.

@Olabowale

Since Jonah came back 3 full days later, alive and well, then Jonah has exactly or even a greater power as even than Jesus. This simply destroys the unique ressurrection quality thye Christians have been raving about.

Why then don't you call Jonah like Jesus, god then? Or matbe now you will call Jesus like Jonah ordinary human and a prophet!

Matthew 12:39-41
(39)  But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
(40)  For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
(41)  The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Luke 11:30-32
(30)  For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
(31)  The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
(32)  The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Was the prophet Jonah dead when he was inside the belly of the whale for three days and three nights??

If he was dead inside the belly of the whale then Jesus was also dead inside the belly of the earth for three days and three nights.

But if Jonah was not dead indide the belly of the whale then Jesus was not dead inside the belly of the earth.

Next question

When Jonah was swallowed by the whale was he dead or alive?

If he was dead then Jesus when he was brought down from the cross was also dead.

But if Jonah was alive when he was swallowed by the whale then Jesus was alive when he was brought down from the cross

The answer to the questions:

Yes, Jonah was dead inside the belly of the whale/fish.
He died before he was swallowed.

Jon 2:1-10
(1) Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,
(2) And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
(3) For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.
(4) Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
(5) The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
(6) I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.
(7) When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.
( They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
(9) But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.
(10) And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.


Note the bold portions.

- "Out of the belly of hell cried I"
Hell represents the place of the dead. It is refered to as hades,sheol or grave in different translations. Obviously, it is only the dead that can be in the place of the dead.

-"The waters compassed me about, even to the soul"
This is an expression of death.

-"When my soul fainted within me"
Another expression of death.

Verse 7 of the verses above shows that,jst before Jonah slipped away into death, he prayed to God

Jonah sank to the bottom of the sea as he died and his soul departed to the place of the dead;while the fish then came up and swallowed his body;preserving it in the process for three days.

Now let's get on to the Bible, why did you not interpret the verse where Jesus asked us to retain sins?

@lady,

the following below should give a very good explanation for why Jesus asked us to retain sins:

Luke 17:3(KJV)
(3)  Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

The above verse gives the condition for forgiving sin;  and that is repentance!
So,it is safe to conclude that without repentance, there is no forgiveness of sin but a retention.
It's just like our case with God. God is willing to forgive us our sins but requires us to repent to get the forgiveness.
Also, Christ died for the sins of mankind, but the forgiveness of sins provided by his sacrifice is not available unless mankind first repents.

The point in the above verse is much clearer in the CEV bible:

Luke 17:3(CEV)
(3)  So be careful what you do. Correct any followers of mine who sin, and forgive the ones who say they are sorry.

We can see that it is those who are sorry/repentant that get forgiveness.

The point being driven here is very evident through careful reading of 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2. The two chapters are talking about an issue of sin(1 Corinthians 5) and forgiveness(2 Corinthians 2) concerning a particular person.

A repentant person gets forgiveness; an unrepentant person does not get forgiveness but has his sins retained.

So, when a person sins, we as Christians have the right to withold forgiveness(not with any form of malice but a clear indication of knowledge of the sin) if the person has not repented. But if he repents, forgiveness is willingly and cheerfully given.

Carlosein,
I didn't miss out anything.Rather,you did.
The account of Mary which u referred to in Matthew does not relate in anyway at all to the woman in Revelation 12.
How?
I will show u below:
-The woman fled into the wilderness(not the desert as u put it) and she had a place prepared for her.This is not Egypt.
-You should have noticed that the woman fled into the wilderness after her child was caught up to God and not before.The catching up to God refers to when Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection.
Her fleeing was after his ascension.
Mary's fleeing to Egypt was when Christ was still a child and many years away from his death,resurrection and ascension.
-Also,the time period for which the woman was to be in the wilderness does not in anyway relate to Mary's stay in Egypt(although it is pointless saying this after saying the second point above),but it does surely relate to Israel based on Daniel's vision/prophecy in Daniel 9 and Christ's sayings in Matthew 24.
-Also,it is very clear that the dragon was after the woman and not the child since the child had gone to God.Mary's flee to Egypt was because Herod was after her child;not her.
The only reference to when Herod was after the child is in revelation 12:4;where the dragon wanted to devour the child as soon as it was born.
The accounts of revelation 12 with reference to the fleeing of the woman is a prophecy on stuff yet to happen from the time of the revelation and not stuff that had happened.The stuff that had happened stopped with the child being caught up to heaven.

Chukwudi44,

For u to still say what u just said above kind of shows that u did not understand the analysis I carried out above.
Having the conclusion u have is based on a myopic viewing of what that passage could be saying. When it comes to interpreting the accounts of the book of revelations, a whole lot of resources from the bible have to be pulled in to get a proper conclusion.You don't just interpret on a limited or myopic stance.
Your conclusion that the woman is Mary is very faulty and very biased.
The analysis I made above is clear enough.I can't explain it better than that.

chukwudi44:
@ttalks,
please who gave birth to JESUS ,Isreal or Mary.Are trying to trivialiase the role of Mary in the incarnation?

As regards Revelation 12, a number of entities have been ascribed to the woman clothed with the sun, the moon at her feet and a garland of twelve stars on her head. The entities include:
- Israel
- Mary
- The Church

Now, in situations like this, the best way to determine the right entity to be associated with the woman is  by applying an elimination process.

First of all, the woman is said to be clothed with the sun, the moon at her feet and a garland of twelve stars on her head. As I said in my last comment, this has to be related to Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9-11. The dream showed Jacob(who is Israel) to be the sun, Rachael to be the moon, and the eleven stars to be Joseph's brothers. Now in the case of Revelation 12, the sun still represents the same thing; Israel, the moon still Rachael; the mother of the twelve stars which are the twelve tribes of Israel; Joseph making up the twelfth star.
And as I pointed out before, Israel has always been depicted to be a woman:
Isaiah 54:1-6,Jeremaiah 3:20,Ezekiel 16:8-14,etc

Now, these attributes can only be attributed to Israel and not Mary, and not the Church.

Going on to Revelation 12:2,

Rev 12:2
(2)  And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

In this case, one could say the possibilities of the women who could have been in this situation were:
- Mary; because she obviously must have gone through birth pains to give birth to Jesus
- Israel; because she too was under the travails and pains of the Roman oppression and occupation during the time of Jesus' birth(Michah 5,Jeremiah 4:3,6:24,13:21,30:1-.
The church can't even be counted in these possibilities as will be shown below:

Revelation 12:5
(5)  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

We all know that Christ brought about or gave birth to the church and not the other way around. So, that knocks off the church from being the woman. We are now left with two possibilities; Mary and Israel.

To show that the scenario being painted above could not exclusively be related to Mary, Balaam's prophecy shows a relation to the above verse granting Israel also the right to that scenario:

Num 24:17-19
(17)  I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.
(18)  And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly.
(19)  Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city.

While it is true that Mary gave birth to Jesus, it is also true that Jesus, the son of David from the tribe of Judah, came from Israel. In a real sense, Israel gave birth—or brought forth—Christ Jesus.

So, we're still left with the two women; Mary and Israel as the possibilities.

Going further:

Revelation 12:6
(6)  And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Now the above verse completely knocks off Mary from being the woman. There is nothing about Mary's life that refers to her fleeing into the wilderness to a place prepared for her of God. Rather, this can fully be related to Israel.

When it speaks of the woman fleeing into the wilderness for 1,260 days, it is referring to the future time called the tribulation period. Twelve hundred sixty days is 42 months of 30 days each. 42 months is 3 1/2 years. Halfway through the tribulation period, the beast will set an image of himself up in the temple that will be built in Jerusalem. This is the abomination that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. When the beast does this, he breaks the peace pact he made with Israel, and the nation has to flee for safety (also see Matthew 24; Daniel 9:27). This is the picture of the woman fleeing into the wilderness

Revelation 12:12-17 speaks of how the devil will make war against Israel, trying to destroy her (Satan knows his time is short, relatively speaking—see Revelation 20:1-3, 10). It also speaks of how God will protect Israel while in the wilderness. Note Revelation 12:14 where it says that Israel will be protected from the devil for "a time, times, and half a time (a time = 1 year -- 3 1/2 years).

So, it is pretty clear from all these that the woman in Revelations 12 is none other than Israel and NOT MARY!!!

As for Mary.

Let's look at Revelations 11:19- 12
11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, and earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
12:2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
12:5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

Mary is the ark of the covenant. She carried the Word of God in her womb for nine months, and we see in Revelations the ark of the covenant has now taken the shape of a woman.

You assume Mary is the woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet,and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Have you ever considered that it could not be Mary but rather is Israel?!!
Did you try to relate the issue about the sun,moon and twelve stars with Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9-11?
Remember,Jacob represents Israel and was represented by the sun in the dream,Rachael was represented by the moon,the eleven stars represented Joseph's brothers;and definitely Joseph is the twelfth star in the revelation as he is now among the other tribes of Israel(12 tribes).

Also remember that Israel was often represented as a woman(Isaiah 54:1-6,Jeremaiah 3:20,Ezekiel 16:8-14,etc).

Looking at Revelaions 12:2,

Rev 12:2
(2)  And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

The pain and travail during the birth represent the travail and pain of israel at the time of the birth of Jesus; under Roman oppression and occupation.

Exactly and that's why we tell you to go to Catholic websites to get the actual documents. Majority of the documents that bobyaf presented are no where to be found in Catholicism, why? Because they weren't by the Catholic Church. I know for a fact that people have made up documents and passed them off as Catholic documents and posted them on websites and people like you go there and believe that those are Catholic documents when infact they aren't.

I personally have gone to some original Catholic documents,pages and sites and I have read a lot.Now when I say 'read a lot', it wasn't reading with a biased mind. It was reading to understand where u guys are coming from or what drives u guys.
But u see, the bible is always with me and is the source of all my belief and understanding in God.Going through most of the articles as objectively as possible,there were a whole lot of stuff that sparked off as wrong.These sparks were because of what I knew the bible said on some issues.So I brought my bible alongside and did a compare and contrast and saw that some provisions in the Catholic documents were not in agreement with Scripture.

And the point we are stressing is that the real Catholic documents and beliefs are rooted in scripture. If you guys will be truthful and logical and approaching the issue you will see so as well. I saw so and so have millions of protestant converts to Catholicism. I converted to Catholicism when I decided to stop going through hateful websites and went straight to the source. I went to a Catholic Church.
And dear you do need someone to explain it for you, sometimes our eyes can be misleading especially when we expect to see something. When you go looking for something you may find it even when it isn't there.

Every body knows that most Christian faiths are rooted in Scripture, but the issue is: Is it completely in agreement with Scripture?
Almost every practice in different Christian faiths/denominations are rooted or founded in scripture but the problem is that along the line,they do not flow with Scripture anymore.The base or foundation or starting point might be in Scripture,but the body or branches are dipped in something else; which automatically renders the whole thing wrong.It's just like having a specific path for something or a journey:One starts properly in the right path,but along the line,there is a deviation.Ultimately,the destination would not be the same as that of the predefined path.
What should be paramount or important about the Christian faith is that every of its practices must flow along with scripture at all times.

Going through the bible properly,u will see that every Christian has a personal responsibility to study and understand everything about the faith.Having someone explain the Catholic faith to u after u have done proper and objective study of the provisions of the documents applying approved standards of studying and understanding based on the language being used to communicate the info, is completely unnecessary.Having a Catholic explain the contents of their documents is highly unobjective because he/she is clearly going to give an explanation to favor his/her belief.That is a biased position.
The best way to handle it without being biased is to set approved methods and standards of studying and allow Christians to use them to make conclusions based on what they see and the language it is communicated in.
The Catholic documents have english versions and english language has approved standards of use by which proper conclusions can be made of stuff written in it.

Instead of approaching this issue with us with an already made up mind, how about you actually reason with us and if our reasoning doesn't make sense to you then you can go on your way.

The mind or stand we have is based on what the bible has communicated and not any other possibility.Reasoning with u is what most of us have been trying to do and we still hope to reason until it isn't possible to anymore.But our reasoning will always be based on the bible's position on things and not based on what someone feels should be or could be the case.

I will stress a point to you, that you do believe in what Catholics believe you just don't know it. If you wish for me to show you then I don't have a problem with that, as far as you promise to respect me as I promise to respect you.

Definitely there are points of agreement between the Catholic faith and what we believe. But also,definitely,there are points of disagreement.We do not believe in all u do but definitely,there are certain beliefs which are common. There are very clear points where there is and can never be agreement with what u guys believe.But the point we stress is this:Everything has to agree completely with scripture.Where they don't,where they are shaky,where they contradict,etc. they are thrown away.That is our stand.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=215905.msg3396570#msg3396570 date=1233164854]Wait o ttalks, I didn't respond to this properly.

Do you mean to tell me that if I want to research christianity, I should go to a muslim website? Is that what you're saying?[/quote]To research on Christianity,go to the Bible.
To research on Roman Catholicism;one has to go else where and those are the Catholic Documents,articles,rules/regulations,constitutions,whatever,etc.
These Catholic sources as mentioned above are what any sincere Christian goes through to make conclusions on.We don't need any Catholic Priest or leader to explain them for us.
And the point we're stressing is that most of the contents of these Catholic sources do not agree with Scripture.
You might say that there are other books that support ur Catholic practices; but if that truly is the case,the little we have in the bible would also point out agreement one way or the other with ur doctrines.
But as we know,the bible does not in anyway support ur traditions/doctrines.

If you want to learn about history you don't go to the chemistry professor. If you want to learn about the Catholic Church you don't go to a non-catholic source. Only ignorant ppl do that. Or better yet if you want to learn about Christianity you don't go to a muslim website, only misguided fools do so.

So people can still be as unobjective as this?!!

Everything that people who preach against Catholic Doctrine do/say is based on what the Catholics present as their approved doctrine;all found in their documents and articles,and also from what their priests and popes preach.What all these teachings and documents communicate is a complete package of information which is expected to be understood by any sane human being with normal reasoning.
Based on this common understanding, scripture is brought along side for a comparative analysis and alas!!! The Catholic doctrine is found to be false and untrue.

Christianity is properly understood from the bible. If any other faith contradicts the bible's accounts, that faith is wack and false.
To understand Christianity one should go to the bible.
Nobody needs to go to any Catholic to understand the Catholic faith;it is very easy to understand it based on their own provisions- their published documents/articles on their doctrine and also their constant teachings.
And as said before, it contradicts Christianity; so it's false and wack!!

segyemaro:
The question is?Should we stop giving tithe?

And the answer is : Yes, we should stop giving the tithe.Stop! Stop!! STOP!!!

Ooops,I forgot to add another link:

http://israelitewatchmen.com/Emahiser/Daniel%20Prophesied%20the%20Roman%20Catholic%20Church.pdf

Links to the truth about the Roman Catholic Church:

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/sevenhills.asp

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine10&item=1104072955

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Catholic_church_by_scripture.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/10-rcc.htm

These are just a few of the links among many that show the real deal behind the RCC.
Those who've been ordained to salvation who're still within the RCC will definitely heed the message being put forward and "COME OUT OF HER".
The rest that don't,well,too bad.

Bobbyaf,

Don't you remember that they have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication?
They've become numb to the reality of truth due to their drunken state.
It's only those who are truly God's and are ordained unto salvation that will awake from their drunken stupor and face the reality of truth.

huxley:
1 Corinthian 5: 13 - But them that are without God judgeth. From the King James Version.

What do you think?

Don't tell me English is a problem with you?!! Don't read that verse in isolation and out of context.
It simply means those that are outsiders from the church will be judged by God.

Bobbyaf,

Look at it this way:

Hebrews 8:6-13
(6)  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.
(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8  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:
(9) 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.
(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13)  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.

The emphasis I'm trying to lay is on verse 9.God said the new covenant will not be according to the former.That simply means,the new covenant will be different from the old and definitely would have its own requirements and not the requirements of the old.

When the old was established,the requirements were what were required to be kept by the people and not what existed before.Though tithes existed before the law,they were not the same way before the law when practised within the law(Personal decision as against a command).

The titles new and old speak volumes.Old means done away, new means existing and fresh(as regards the covenants).This simply means the old had its way and the new has its own way.

Now,within the new covenant,we are expected to obey the provisions of the new covenant alone and not the provisions of the law or the provisions that existed when there was no covenant.

Hebrews 10:19-20
(19)  Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
(20)  By[b] a new and living way[/b], which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Verse 20 shows we have a new and living way within the new covenant, not a life of incorporation of what was existing before.

Now back to the tithes proper;we all know that tithes before the law and within the law had specific stipulations upon them(as in amount or percentage)and it could also be considered as a form of giving, right?

Now look at this:

2Co 9:7
(7) Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Giving under the new testament is based on the above condition. Tithes are not as a man purposes or decides for himself because they have specific stipulations that are devoid of how much a man would want to give from what he has.
Also, tithes are of necessity based on the reason for them.
Giving within the new testament is based on love and compassion for those in need.

@Bobbyaf

I will provide more details, but I am not too sure I'd like to expose the website I got the information from lest the enemy of souls motivate Naughty Boys to try and cause problems for the site, , I hope you understand.

SeanT21:
The Pastor is suppose to focus on preaching the gospel.He needs to study the bible from Monday-Saturday.How do U expect him to do all this if he has 2 jobs.

With out tithe how will the church bills be paid?

A Pastor does not need to study from Monday to Saturday to know what to preach.He can study at anytime he can.And besides,regular and frequent studying is supposed to have given a pastor enough and proper info about the gospel message to be able to preach the word of God at any point in time;not necessarily the traditional Sunday church service

Churches of today have incredulous bills to pay based on their man made structure and organization which do not conform to the structure of the gospel.
Churches can operate today without acquiring or accumulating bills.But even if bills do come up,they can be handled by the generous and freewill giving from the congregation.I know of a church that does not acquire any bills except for its rentage fee.

chukwudi44:
@ttalks

please am still waiting name the "true" church that was merely pushed aside

The true church of God does not have any name if u think it does.Not like the RCC.
The true church of God is just what it is;the Church.
What does the church comprise of?
All those who believed in Jesus Christ and were baptized into his body by the Holy Spirit.
The Church is the body of Christ,not the RCC.
The church is made up of different people distributed all over the world who have eternal life through Jesus Christ.

"we can count up to those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the

apostles,and their successors down to us ,none of them has taught this doctrine.But as it

would be tidious to enumerate the succession of bishops in the differant churches,we refer

you to the tradition of that GREATEST,most ancient and universally known church

founded at Rome by st peter and  st paul, which has been preserved there through the

succession of thir Bishops."-st irenaeus 175 AD

The church founded at Rome was not by Peter;it was founded by Paul. This is according to the bible. This makes st Irenaeus accounts contradictory with the bible's and that makes him an unreliable source of truth.The church was founded in Jerusalem and it was by Peter and the other apostles;not exclusively Peter. That established in Rome came up later and this was through Paul.

ttalks,
mind you st irenaeus was not just a disciple of polycarp of smyrna,but also Bishop of lyons and one of the early church fathers.
Let me ask you this question ,does being with the apostles make the teachings of st paul infallible?
remember he was not even one of the twelve ,but yet had the greatest impact on  christianity.

Paul's teachings are infallible because they agree with the rest of the scripture which were written by other apostles.However, st Irenaeus teachings contradict scripture/the writtings of the apostles.

It's you I should be asking that:Does the fact that st Irenaeus being a disciple and Bishop make his teachings infallible?
Don't we have Bishops and teachers and priests and Pastors whose teachings cannot be accepted?
Their teachings cannot be acceped because they do not agree with scripture.
Paul's teachings agree with scripture;that is why his teachings are infallible.

Bobbyaf,

I think it would be cool for u to give more specifics on the prophecy.Let's all view it and see what we can make out of it.And it would also be nice to get the source where u got the info relating most of the details of the prophecy to the Roman Catholic Church.It would help in viewing things on a very broad note.
Thanks.

Bobbyaf,

The tithe that Abraham paid before Moses' time was something he did of his own freewill;it was not based on an order from God or any commandment of God.It was a freewill situation.
In other words,if he had not given the tithe then,it would not have meant he would have lost favour in God's sight.he chose to do it on his on volition.

Now,under the old covenant which was established through Moses, and spanning to the Malachi accounts,the tithing there was based on God's command,so the people paid it/returned it/gave it because of that command and not because they were operating on freewill.As is very obvious,there were penalties for not paying such tithes.
Therefore,the tithe paying/giving then was not because the people had love for others or felt compassion for the needy;it was because they were under compulsion by the commandment(that is not to say some people didn't genuinely have compassion for othrs then).

In the new covenant,every form of giving which exists is based on the freewill and the compassion and love of the giver towards those that are in need.It does not flow along the same lines as giving based on commandments and specific stipulations.Tithes which are based on commandments and specifics don't belong to the order or way of the new covenant.

But,the most reasonable reason why tithes can not be under the new covenant is because they were a law to the people under the old covenant which Christians do not operate under anymore.

If a christian, out of love for others or a specific need to be met,gives 10% of what he has to help out, it is labeled as giving as he/she purposes or settles in his/her mind and not a tithe.If a Christian gives 10% of what he/she has to any cause or need out of the compulsion of the "Pay tithes" commandment,and not because of genuine love and willingness to help out, such a Christian is simply obeying an abolished law and is forcing Galatians 5:4 upon himself/herself.
Paying of tithes because of the law to pay it;that is paying it in accordance to the law,defeats the theme of the new covenant,which is love as the basis of everything done.

The new covenant only supports giving of different kinds,different amounts,- there are no specifics or stipulation and they all stem from love and also from willingness to help and are done according to the determination of the giver.Anybody can definitely see that the rules of tithes don't agree with these conditions.

SeanT21:
If we do not give,How do U expect the pastor to provide for him and his family?

Nobody told the Pastor that he should not have another job to support himself and his family.Don't they have Paul and other Apostles as examples to follow?
It is the current structure and organization of most denominations today which were established by men that is forcing the pastors to make tithes become the source of their livelyhood.