₦airaland Forum

@ Pilgrim,

Hiya, hope you are well.

I read with interest your (in my opinion), totally flawed interpretation of Hebrews 7 to mean two things;

1. That the two OT types Priesthood are not types and excelled by Christs and
2. That Hebrews teaches that tithing is a NT practise.

Both are wrong and tragically so.

Let me ask you this;

1. If Melchizedeks priesthood is unchanging, where is Melchizedek now? What capacity does he minister in today? Why was he replaced? Why would he be?
2. If the writer of Hebrews was referring to "Christ" when he said that "here he recieves them of whom it is witnessed that he lives", please tell me how Christ recieves tithes in this age.

I could go on and on about how beyond poor, perverse even, is your reading of scripture on this subject. I could even abandon it seeing you determination to force-fit tithing at all costs. Not to mention your bellicose rant at me personally. But in the interest of those following I'll humour you somewhat and persevere.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim.1,

Let me re-state clearly. Melchizedek =/= Christ. Melchizedeks priesthood is a Shadow of Christs. Just as the Aaronic one also pre-figured Christs.

The reference to the tithe and the sons of Levi was to show that the Melchizedek priesthood was superior to the Levitical. Finito. Not a hint to NT Christians to Tithe.

Hebrews clearly states that;
1. The Levites recieved tithes under the law
2. Said law is now done away with.
3. Their payment of tithes through Abraham denoted Melchizedeks priesthood as superior.
4. But even the Melchizedek type has been replaced bas "another has arisen" (of similar type).

And so I repeat. NT Christians are nowhere mandated to tithe.

If a NTC wishes to do so voluntarily, then fine, but such an act accrues no blessings (similarly, not doing so accrues no curses) unavailable to one who simply gives.

In that case voluntary tithing is no different to giving (which is also voluntary), and it becomes a mute point.

If you request a NT verse that denounces tithing, I'll say this;
1. Show me one that proclaims it as NT practice.
2. A thorough exigeses of the topic in context shows that it is at best a non-starter.

Quit the lip and admit the weakness of your position. I promise to be a gentleman and not gloat for too long  . I'll even applaud your hard efforts although usually lame and ultimately futile.

God bless
TV

^{Pilgrim.1, when are you going to admit to being an alter-ego?} _{What's a mis-road girl??}

Ah, ah Pilgrim. Such harsh lanuguage. As ever, I give place to you as to the weaker vessel !

TV01, it doesn't cost anything to be honest. That verse does not speak about money matters, and you know it. Trying to offer it as a pretence for money matters is hideous when infact it does not. If someone quotes another verse for a principle, you'd characteristically be first to raise your hand and cry hooha.

It talks about giving. But I'll humour you (again). Lets discard that particular verse. Any comment on the dozen others?

Since giving is varied, WHY then has it been such a nightmare to you especially when the same GIVING is mentioned in connection with "tithing" (another type of giving)? What games are you playing here

As in what you can give.

You're such a silly laugh, honestly. You make a case so much for giving and tithing and then come back complaining against the same strains you're offering. Please go back and pick out where indeed I said (or "insist" that "tithing = giving". If you no longer understand English, what do you make out of this clause in my rejoinder: "any kind of giving at all in the NT"?!?

Me, make a case for tithing. Have someone take a look at the blow to the head you have obviously sustained

Giving is outlined, exhorted and praised in the NT. Tithing is not.

On what basis are you championing tithing for NT Christians? Please demonstrate that your 3rd way is not mythic, and substantiate with clear explication from scripture, instead of tart posers such as "what does this mean" or what does that say" or your perennial favourite "where in the NT does it say blah, blah, blah".

The champion you are at that.

Thanks for the compliment, but girl truly you are in a class of your own. Unparalleled !

Olodo! Go get you study tools and dust them to help you see your noise is not worth it. You agree it was "under a superior priesthood to the levitical type." Question: has the Melchizedek priesthood been set aside for a third type of "superior" priesthood?

Olodo rabata sef!
Yes, the Melchizedek type was superior to the Levitical, but it was just a shadow". So yes the Melchizedek has been set aside for the fullness in Christ. Must 'fess up, I'm a bit of a "needs must" studier, but you could use some extra-mural classes. At your service girl !

Classic denial yet again. What then is the meaning of Heb. 7:9 & 10? Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek in no way affected Levi, NO?

NO, it did not! Please say how? Did the people tithe in respopnse to Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek or in accordance with the law?

I have repeatedly said, the whole import of the Abraham/Melchizedek encounter was to to show the superiority of the Melchizedek type to tthe levitical. Full stop. In return, read verses 11 & 12 of the same chapter you sightlessly quoted.

You make yourself sound so very cheap when you try to accuse and force issues into people's posts. I nowhere intended tithes as mandatory; and my point is simply that it is not taught in Scripture that tithing is disparaged or negated the way those who oppose it have been doing! That is why I offered that you guys bring forward such a verse where tithing has been forbidden, as well as offered the first question initially: "1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?"

I'm not just cheap, I'm also easy ! But you are making no headway dear! Try harder !

I have not disparaged, merely shown via end-to-end exigesis, that the notion of a mandatory tithe is wrong and that voluntary tithing cannot be differentiated from giving, and is thus a mute point. If you insist there is a difference, please show it, without resort to mixed-grain theology. Thank you.

When people have cheated behind the counter to force their premises denouncing tithing in order to militate against it, I have offered just one simple quest where such a position is not at all found in the Nion: show me the verse that says tithing is NOT to be a Christian observation.

Likewise, please show from scripture that tithing is a Christian observation. My dear, you can be so regressive. This topic has passed a thousand posts and all you can come up with is "show me one verse?" Naughty!

remember who used that language to show how beggarly he is in his pretended "walk" and under-achievements when discussing Biblical issues. Indeed, I'm now so used to your crap that it would have been surprising if you didn't post that bunkum to show how beggarly your reading skills have become.

I get it, you quite like me ! Must be said, I'm quite fanciable, but I no longer do proms !

Don't sob so loud - I didn't use the word "command" to discuss tithing. I only asked you to show where Scripture denounces tithing the way you have been cheating readers once and again. That too hard for your level of understanding?

Again, please state for the record, the basis that you consider tithing to be a Christian notion.

Oh, "no different to giving", you say? Don't make me laugh, loser! Are you not the same chap who's been making crap noise about equating tithing to giving? "No different to giving" - listen to yourself!

You have gotten so personal over this. Clear evidence of you failure to prosecute your position on sound scriptural reasoning. And liberally peppering with smilies doesn't hide the poor humour and frustration in your posts ! And by the way, I'd rather listen to myself than your relentless drone! Girl, you could could nag for Africa !

You must have been to the health center already. I'm cool. . . just don't have the time for your games.

I won't bore you with my latest sporting injury (lest I end up confused about what ails me ). But discussing with you would drive lesser mortals insane. I have the patience of a Saint me

Later

God bless ^{olodo's (of whom I am chief !)}
TV

clemcykul:
Who said christ or the apostles never talked about thithing

No one. Christ mentioned tithing, but it was never mentioned or commanded to Christians. Non of the Apostles ever mentioned or commanded it. So thats a no on 3 of 4 points.

clemcykul:
the bible says giv and it shall be given unto u, good measures shaken together and runing over shall the lord pour unto your bosom. christ even gave parables on giving. the lord God almighty loves a cheerful giver.

Oh my. A nice little sermon on giving

clemcykul:
even in genesis when God told cain and Abel to bring the first friuts of their labour what does that imply? it implies that right from the begining God instituted the tithe,

Spoilt by confusing it with tithing and a mis-understanding of firstfruits. Oh dear.

clemcykul:
ure are showing your appreciation to God for prospering you.

That is, giving Him a cut? Sounds like a protection racket.

clemcykul:
remember God loves a grateful heart You giv unto God and he will in his power and might enlarge your coast.

Or maybe an investment scheme.

clemcykul:
remember that money given to God does not go into private pockets

I'd love to discuss the practical everday import of a tithe. But some people seem determined to stop us getting there. What would Melchizedek have used Abrahams tithe for? What is the tithe used for in this day and age? What is the scriptural blueprint for it's application?

clemcykul:
its used for the propagation of the Gospel

One of the biggest lies out there. Propagation of the gospel is not predicated on enforced or voluntary collection of money.

No where in the NT is money collected (mandatorily or voluntarily) to spread the gospel, pay salaries, build temples or any of the myriad other things money is applied to nowadays. But like I said, some don't want us to have that discussion, as it would equally disprove the erroneous notion that tithing is a Christian imperative.

clemcykul:
Which is the primary duty of every christian.

That is at best debatable, but even if it was, there is nothing to suggest that tithing is the way to do it.

clemcykul:
may God help us to run our christain race to the end in Jesus ever living name AMEN.

Amen.

Don't skirt around the simple question. One could as well "give" their wives, yes? This is precisely the same thing I cautioned about roundabout arguments. My question was about money matters, not the swinging about giving. You and Hnd-holder have been hooting about "the topic is about tithing"; and now you've momentarily frgotten that to speak of give this or that.

Good of you to remember, since you are working tirelessly to make tithing = giving !

[Please be honest with yourself. Does that verse speak of money matters?

I quoted various verses. Pick one that does not talk specifically about money and build a siegemound. Oh Miss, you can do better. Giving is varied, and even restricting it to money matters is answered by some verses I offered.

Giving encopmpasses money. To say that it is about giving leaves you blind-sided as you insist tithing = giving. So maybe we should tithe time, or any other resouce huh?

Neither does your premise buttress he case for giving as well.

Doublespeak!

Heb.7:8 - "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. "

Please note that verse indicates a present instance (check the Greek 'μαρτυρέω' to see for yourself). What that points to is simply this: the priesthood of Melchizedek is a living priesthood, not one that has become obselete. In contrast to those who received tithes here ("here men that die receive tithes", Scripture is clear that the priesthood of Melchizedek is a present event ("but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth".

To further emphasize the point on tithing, we understand that the singular response of Abraham in Gen. 14:20 actually affected his progeny - as is clear in Heb. 7:9 & 10 -- "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."

Too much learning leads to brainfag - to paraphrase  !

Here => under the law (levitical priesthood). Both redundant Miss.
There => under a superior priesthood to the levitical type. Is Melchizedek High Priest now?

No it didn't affect his progeny, just showed their priesthood to be inferior to Melchizedeks.

Those who militate against tithes as a NT practice for Christians should calmly consider this portion of Scripture; or they should do one simple thing: proffer the verse in the Bible that states that Christians are NOT to tithe.

Calm down Miss. We have duly considered it. It does'nt mean a tithe is demanded of NT Christians. Neither have you shown that it does. Plus you further muddle your own position. As this would suggest it is mandatory, whilst you are trying to sell it as voluntary and the same as giving.

Same old sorry arse strategy. "Mixed grain theology". Mixing OT & NT, Law & Grace, shadows and fullness. With a nice little topping of implied blessings/curses. Lame. Did I say you can do better? I still believe you can

NT exhorts Christians to give. Nowhere does the NT command tithing. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

And no one is millitating against it. Just saying it's not mandatory and if voluntary, then no different to giving and thus a non-starter.

You sound really het up. Is everything alright?

God bless
TV

Here, let me help you:

You are too kind.

I very much appreciate the texts you quoted. However, like I said, you really have not answered my question.

I'm not entirely sure you actually want an answer. Your approach seems to be one of "tease and promise". The tease being altogether "school-girly", while the promise is never fulfilled. You start with a poser, but we never seem to get to what you are getting at. If as you often allude too, you have something of import to say, please do.

"1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?"

I would have hoped that the scriptures I posted, along with my previous posting show my thoughts are that it is part and parcel of the Christian life, especially as one matures in faith.

So, give. Give, money, food, drink, shelter, time, resources, help, counsel, advice, sacrificially, cheerfully, liberally, abundantly. Give honour, give praise, give worship, give glory.

Yes, or No - and whichever was the case, this is why it is so from this and that text of Scripture.

It you have a view either way, what restrains you from doing as you yourself suggest? Even the courtesy of stating why you ask would be helpful, so as to clarify and contextualise.

If I have to go through each text you offered, we'd have to come round seeing that not all apply to money issues (Matt. 10:8 on healing, it's not about giving money).

Not all? But some se? Not to mention that giving, as I've said is not only monetary.

You wrote;

My enquiry was simple enough - "2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?"

I replied;

Giving engenders blessings both here and in the hereafter.

Which part of that is indecipherable?

Okay, if I should take that as an answer, then it only speaks to the point that you agree there are indeed blessings for "giving". Whether or not anyone is looking for a formula does not have any bearing at all in what I'm asking; and that is the roundabout argument that I stated I'm not in the least interested in.

Stating that there are blessings for giving, does not buttress the case for tithing.

With regards to the Melchizedek case, I think you're looking away from what the text says and points to. Please read it again. . . carefully, and it might become clear how you missed the point.

Obliged for the direction. And having read and re-read, I have no further insight that leads me to re-state in anyway what I wrote.

So, in lieu of it becoming clear to me how I missed the point, perhaps you'd be so kind as too enlighten me.

I continually humour you in the hope that maybe you have something of relevance to say. Throwing out posers, disdaining the responses and not actually providing your own reading or insight does not suggest that you are actually interested in honest dialogue.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Nope, you didn't. Go through again - and when I read answers, then I'll offer something.

Answers to what exactly? Since I thought I'd answered the three questions posed, please be clear if there were 1. More questions and 2. Any I left unanswered.

Or alternatively, you could just offer whatever it is you believe to be of import.

God bless
TV

OLAADEGBU:
Who is the only person in the Holy Bible(KJV) that has the title "reverend"?

That would be "The Most High God".

pilgrim.1:
@TV01,

Actually, I didn't read answers to my questions. And as I didn't want to go into another unnecessary long-winding discussion, I felt it might help our good spirits to leave each one to their persuasion.

I understand perfectly, and it's exactly what I expected from you !

@Pilgrim 1.

Unlike you not to appreciate or respond to the proferred answers to your posers?

@Bari-Kade.

Just to let you know that I am still eagerly waiting. But I understand we all labour under time constraints. Please take all the time you need.

God bless
TV

uchetobi:
I think nothing can shock me again jore

Pun right?

That is why I have offered a bold challenge that you and TV01 come back and post in bold capitals that NO VERSE ever taught that women were to have any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever.

NOT OVER MATURE CHRISTIAN MALES.

pilgrim.1:
Again, confusing the home for the Church. That is why I have offered a bold challenge that you and TV01 come back and post in bold capitals that NO VERSE ever taught that women were to have any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever. Please dare me and oblige my challenge - I have a shocker for you guys!

Oya shock us now !

pilgrim.1:
Could anyone try to share on Hebrews 7:8 - "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

Read thus (in context);

And here (i.e under the law in Israel which still existed at the time of writing Hebrews) men (mortal  priests appointed under the Old Covenant) that die (neccessitating a new appointment) receive tithes (from those who are under the law of Moses); but there (In the Genesis 14 account 2000 years prior, during the time of Abraham) he (Melchizedek) receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Again, the whole thrust of the tithing reference is to show that the Melchizedek High Priesthood is superior to the Aaronic/Levitical type. Levi via Abraham paid tithes to a superior type. Melchizedek was King & Priest (Leviters were only priests). The levitical priesthood consisted of mortal, sinful men who continually died and had to be re-appointed. The Lord is/was without sin. Melchizedek was "without father, without mother not having geneaolgy, typified an endless life ("of whom it is witnessed that he liveth". The kind of Life and High Priesthood that our Lord now has. Because He lives forever. Allelujah!

Please, if anyone has anything to justify a mandatory tithe or indeed a voluntary one - with unique benefits that make it different from "simple giving" - for NT Christians, just say so. If anyone wishes to languish in the bondage that tithing engenders, again feel free. But please, in the absence of detailed, comprehensive scriptural back-up, stop trying to push this as common practise and sound doctrine.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?

Firstly, please note, that I am not delineating giving, or ascribing income streams to generosity, or quantifying earthly returns for sacrificial behaviour, nor being mystical about  a "tithe" or anything else. Just talking about "giving" in response to a need (mainly) or to bless.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

Philippians 4:15
Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. 19 And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

I'm sure there are more examples, but that is just the gist of my thoughts. Giving engenders blessings both here and in the hereafter. But there is nothing to suggest that there is a direct formula or law commanding specific returns in this age.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?

Matthew 5:42
Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Matthew 25:37
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?

Mark 10:21
Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."

Luke 3:11
He answered and said to them, "He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise."

Luke 6:30
Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back.

Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

Luke 11:41
But rather give alms of such things as you have; then indeed all things are clean to you

Luke 12:33
Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys

Acts 20:35
I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

2 Corinthians 9:7
So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver

Ephesians 4:28
Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need

1 Timothy 6:18
Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share,

Anyone looking for a an amount attached to the outline for giving is probably missing the understanding of grace and maturity. Flip side of that coin would be to be somewhat legally minded in approach to NT Christian living.

Hope that obliges !

God bless
TV

Just to let you know that i'm eagerly waiting .

pilgrim.1:
Talk to your brother sage - he's the one who tried to force the idea that leadership among God's people in the OT was the exclusive preserve of men; whereas that's not what the Bible teaches at all.

The Bible teaches that overall charge was the preserve of males. Women hade roles and responsibilities. But there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of male rulership.

pilgrim.1:
You guys are simply making a a weak case. If Deborah's case was not pivotal in terms of leadership among God's people, she would not even be recorded in Scripture at all!!

Listen to yourself Miss. Deborahs case is not pivotal to leadership amongst God's people. Not then and not now. There were many OT kings both in united and divided Israel, presumably they are not pivotal? Keep hiding behind an anomalous OT example, whilst steadfastly ignoring the undeniable OT themes of male leadership (as in charge, rule).

pilgrim.1:
Why is her case so much of a trouble for you guys - just because she happens to have been a woman? Would you have treated Deborah's case on the same weak premise if she happened to have been a man?

The discussion can't overlook gender. That's what it's about. Niether does the Bible do so, although you beg to differ.

pilgrim.1:
That Deborah's case was indeed pivotal at a critical time in history of the entire nation of Israel has been offered already - so try not dismiss her case on mere human pressumptions.

Pivoltal to what exactly? Certainly not to the notion that leadership of God's people was a gender-neutral exercise. Please stop misappropriating that word.

pilgrim.1:
Besides, I have noted that she was not the only one as a woman that God used in the leadership of His people - please go back and see.

See what exactly? There is nothing too see or too suggest that there is anything other than a pattern of male leadership (as in rule, not care) in the congregation of the faithful.

pilgrim.1:
Cry all you want. The issues are clearly before you; and how you can falsify that presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is a term of leadership applied to both men and women is still yet to be done. Until you show me where that term is specifically applied to only men, you have no weight to your assertive denials.

Ah, now we are talking pivotal. This is the crux of your whole premise. That the word "presbuteros" means church or religious elder in all instances. That is nothing less than new-age, militant feminist PC theology. The usage and context that underpins your whole arguement (along with Sister Debbie  ) in no way suggests that "Female Church Elders" were being refered to. Indeed nothing in scripture suggests there is such a creature.

pilgrim.1:
Oh dear, something must be amiss in this kind of reasoning. TV01, for brotherly love's sake, let me point out a simple issue you're missing. The 1st epistle of Peter was written by someone who was both an apostle (ch. 1:1) and at the same time an elder (ch. 5:1). He did not drop one for the other to accommodate the reasoning you're putting forward here. Both terms do not mean the same thing; but it does not necessarily mean that Peter was seen in only one while writing the epistle, whereas he clearly stated both in the same epistle.  .

I have repeatedly invited you to enlighten us as to what Apostles do in the local congregation in this day and age. How they would align and harmonise with the other leadership functions you see, but you keep slipping and sliding like the "Teflon Don" are there "Donnettes"?   (And I don't mean Donnie's back up crew from Christ Embassy 0!   ).

pilgrim.1:
This excuse that Peter did not outline the "qualifications" for eldership in his epistle does not negate the fact that he clearly used the same term for "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) - the very same term Paul used for both males and females in his epistle to speak of elders as leaders. Please go check out the Greek term for "elders" in 1 Pet. 5:1, and ask yourself how that differs from the same term applied to both men and women in 1 Tim. 5:1 & 2. (Oh boy! This is so easy!)  .

The same word in context had a different meaning. He was speaking to those who shepherded the flock - Church Elders - no dispute.

pilgrim.1:
Very good, bros. .  very good. Why has it taken you forever to asnswer the one simple question of stating how many apostles you read in the NT? Just why is it taken you forever?

Apostles as named. Those doing apostolic (foundational) work, quite a few. Learn to identify the purpose of office and function. The phases of planning and building to a blueprint. And how once completed control and structure are maintained.

Also note that I didn't ask you an obtuse question. I asked you what, why and how and told you exactly why I was enquiring and how it related to the discussion.

pilgrim.1:
Oya sage, where are you? I don't see how you've been forcing the idea of men leading the "pue worship" of Christian believers.

In reference to your last lines, I would like you to please clearly enunciate where in the NT only men lead the "pure worship" of Christians. I'll wait until you do so, before I show you what you're missing.?

It's almost admirable, the way you bat around non-essentials, and digress down dead-ends. Worship can be individual, but also in a sense collective. In it's collective sense, there is an element of structure, authority and rule. Your wilfully misreading Sage is evidence of the futility of your premise.

Pertinent to note is that even if Sage is 100% wrong on this point, it advances your case not a jot. But I guess you enjoy the non-consequential little skirmishes sha  !

pilgrim.1:
Can we look forward to a discussion henceforth, or we continue to play it the way you make out?

Happy to discuss. But you have very little to go on. Indeed, I almost pity you. One abberation (not truly relevent anyway) and one misinterpretation to make a plausible case. Hard work girl.

I am not even going to say your conclusion is wrong, just that you have not yet proven (even to the degree of putting doubt in my mind) it to any real degree.

Let me hail you as the "Queen of the futile endeavour"  

pilgrim.1:
Cheers.

Warm regards

God bless
TV

Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church

In or over what exactly?

approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches

Written by whom?

Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.

Really?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me." John 14:6.

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Thessalonians 5:9

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
Hebrews 5:9

And so on and so forth.

Would someone be kind enough to have a word with Benny please  . Ta!

The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders

So?

God bless
TV

(b) If you are making out all the disciples to be ONLY MEN, may I ask you what you think of Rom. 16:7 - "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me"?

Junia ~ Gender debatable at best. Note the word "kinsmen"

Hmmmmm. Lengthy posts trying to force OT paradigms, even though we are agreed that they are not binding on NT practice. And especially in light of the fact that the NT contains clear instruction  .

Not to mention that the one case, at the one peculiar time even in the OT did not represent the prescribed pattern for that dispensation. Deborah is not pivotal to the conclusion of our discussion here, and my ceding that point was in some way strategic, so that we could focus on points that were  .

Whilst the case of Deborah is used to force through equivalence, the similar case for priesthood is used to trumpet change. From a male only priesthood, to a universal one. Leadership is now split from priesthood and instituted as a seperate function  .

Trying to re-engineer the word presbuteros to mean church/religious elder in all instances is not bourne out by sound scholarship or the context in the scriptural narrative, and is a clumsy fudge for the purpose of this particular discussion. Particularly disdainful is the attempt to gender stream eldership and the congregation by inferring male elders for men and female for women. Wrong religion  .  

Peter was an apostle and an elder. True. But not necessarily both at the same time. In foundational endevour he was an apostle, but as evidenced by the scriptural narrative, as the church in Jerusalem matured - and it probably happened real quick given the number of the 12 apostles around - church became a day-to-day exercise and he functioned as an elder  .

Hence Peters exhortation in his epistle. Note he did not give an outline for the qualifications for elders, done elsewhere in a foundational sense by Paul. He wrote more in terms of motivation and to exhort, using himself as an example. Isn't scripture just divine !

The by now dusty question about how apostles and prophets harmonise and articulate within mature congregational dynamics has yet to be answered by proponents of female Church elders. I'd appreciate explication - particularly of the oft cited Ephesians 4 - for those of us "confusing" variious leadership roles in the body.  .

I wouldn't read worship as synonymous leadership. Worship (as in loving/adoring/ God) is first and foremost an individual thing, and even as a collective endevour, not something that can be subject in truth. Worship as the whole opffering (everything one does as a believer and member of the congregation) is indeed subject in parts. But that part has nothing to do the priesthood being universal, and everything to do with the blueprint for congregational activity and function.

The trite and spiteful remarks about manhood and asides about real men are telling.

God bless
TV

JohnFOM:
To summarise Malina's article:

Malina asks if the word group 'porneia' covered all the meanings attributed to it in this contemporary time, or are these later usages placed onto the word group in later times and later cultures?

The clear meanings are: cultic sexual practices, idolatory, incest and, commercial harlotry.

Other meanings attributed to the word group are doubtful and disputable in general usage.  Using scripture to interpret scripture, Malina adds the sins of homosexuality, beastiality, sex during the menstrual period, and sacrifice to Molok  (mixed marriages) from the Levitical lists (perhaps adding polygamy at a stretch).

At no point, prior to the 2nd century did porneia mean pre-betrothal, non-commercial, non-cultic, hetrosexual intercourse, and even in the second century it was considered so only by a single Jewish rabbi.

Hi JohnFOM,

Appreciate your outlining your denominational/traditional experience, and additionally the effort to read through the whole thread. Read your posts with interest and noted the article you referenced.

Re the last paragraph in particualr and specifically "pre-betrothal"

Would that suggest that the author considered sex even without betrothal permissable?

I know discussions tend to morph, so whilst this thread is titled;
"Pre-marital sex is not fornication", we are additionally asking "Is pre-marital sex sinful?"

I don't really care to argue historical semantics, so I'm more concerned as to the second point, as that is something that impacts one's day-to-day Christian walk.

Why would it be better to marry than to burn, if it was fine to just go ahead and have sex?
If the marriage bed is undefiled, what (apart from infidelity & deviancy as outlined), is defiling sexual behaviour?

A further point about "Consent & Consumation". I noted the historical agreement that marriage takes place upon consent. Again, I wouldn't argue the point too fervently, but I would say this.

In OT times, rape of an unbetrothed women meant an enforced marriage. Noting also that Isaac "went into his wife" at first meeting (though I'd agree that she had already consented). So I'm not sure that consent has to be first, or is the tipping point.

Personally, and in this day and age, apart, so as not to cause offence, I'd suggest consent, ceremony and then consumation. And probably advise consent before consumation in all cases  !

Like I said, enjoyed the article, can't say I agreed with it all. neither can I say I feel compelled to live be the ruling of any historical precedent or any person outside scripture.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
You're missing the point, really.

On the contrary, I absolutely get it.

Having spoken about the role of Bishop, Paul went on to talk about how older, more mature brethren should be treated. Spiritual maturity or authority, should not mean that physical maturity and experience should not be honoured or is not useful for the care of the brethren.

pilgrim.1:
Men are elders.

Church elders & also brethren who are mature in age, being careful to distinguish them.

pilgrim.1:
Women are also elders.

Not "Church Elders", but congregants who are mature in age.

pilgrim.1:
Men and women have their various roles as elders in Church.

Indeed, both men and women have various roles in the church, but "Church Eldership" is reserved for SQM.

pilgrim.1:
Together, they are called elders (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros).

Yes now! If you employ convoluted arguments and go to great lengths to fudge the differences. !

God bless
TV

So what this suggests is that the term is dependent on context, and the context and usage in Titus 2 does not suggest "Church Elders". Sowwy !

pilgrim.1:
Could you please be man enough to apply your brains?

Could you kindly outline how, or better still, explain.

Thanks

Patience is a virtue. Indeed, it's a fruit of the Spirit and evidence of sacrificial love.

@Pilgrim

Please consult your Greek study materials and refute the exact wordings showing that women are called exactly what the men are called.

Just for you and in love (phileo), and with respect to you as the weaker vessel .

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4246 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
presbuvth߼/FONT> from the same as (4245)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Presbutes 6:683,931
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pres-boo'-tace Noun Masculine

Definition
an old man, an aged man ambassador

King James Word Usage - Total: 3
old man 1, aged man 1, aged 1


The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4247 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
presbu'ti߼/FONT> from (4246)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Presbutis None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pres-boo'-tis Noun Feminine

Definition
an aged woman

King James Word Usage - Total: 1
aged women 1

KJV Verse Count
Titus 1


I could go on and on, but I'll leave you to reflect. With or without a lexicon, concordance, dictionary PHD in the languages of antiquity or really old Greek in-laws , one can clearly discern the context , setting and tone of Titus.

Any more for any more?

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim.1,

Giving place to you as the weaker vessel  , let me comment.

(g) Can I attend a Church led by a Woman?

I believe that Scripture shows us that leadership in the Body of Christ (or in the Church) is a joint exercise rather than an exclusive "men only" or "women only" sort of thing. The elders are both men and women, each having their various distinct roles to play in the Church.

If you insist leadership = care, then yes. Albeit "Church Eldership" is the preserve of SQM.
Also your effort to claim that older women are to teach the younger ones - thus making the older teachers "Elders" -  is true only in part, as it doesn't make them elders.

The corrallary for men is also found wanting, as proper Elders can teach all of the congregation (if they are men, and gifted in teaching). Although it may be wise to let some non-core stuff be handled on a gender basis.

If that is the setting, praise God. But if God in His sovereignty uses women effectively as He does men in some instances, praise Him all the more. I could attend a church where women are in leadership; but I doubt if I would most gladly want to remain there.

Here's where you make a lie of all your postings and a wierd disconnect between your belief and practice.

Why if you beieve in "balance in leadership", differing capacitities and all the other highly spun jargon you have used to push your agenda (futilely it must be said), would you have a problem "where women are in leadership"? Indeed, it can be taken as read from your posts, that if such is not the case, there is something amiss. So you should rather be saying the opposite, that you cannot gladly remain in a church where women are not in leadership.

Talk about weaker and more easily decieved .

But as I said, I give place to that.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim,

Uncouth aggressiveness is unbecoming - even in men - please desist.

Your posts numbered 293 - 296 are not without merit. But being as they are based on post #292, they have to be read with a discerning eye.

More knowledgable, better read contributors have with more depth and clarity already debunked and shred you wilfully misinterpreted and mis-applied reading of Titus 2.

I said something worthy of response. I am not so much responding as highlighting, your trite schoolgirlish ploy to mis-contextualise and mis-apply the reference to older (more mature) congregants as denoting church elders. To further advance and claim it speaks to both genders as such, and even go as far as to claim it's a "call" to eldership. My, my, you are bold.

If that and your rancid diatribe was noot sufficient, you then proceeded to make a nonsense of all you posted previously in #297.

Based on this encounter and your attitude in it, I'd wholesale love to say that women should just "kipshot". But God be thanked, that neither my understanding or approach are informed by my encounters or anecdotal evidence.

I thank Him further, that  I have cause to appreciate His work in the male/female creation and the value, worth and contribution of men women in the church.

God bless
TV

Every able adult Christian male should have a job. _{(Possible exception of itinerant minister in far-flung location with no means/souce of work or trade, and is required to be at that location to minister effectively.)}

@ Pilgrim.1,

Re post 289, I’ll ignore that as you are obviously still in an emotional state.

Re post 290, please calm down. No need to get over excited. But I guess that’s a gender thing huh ? Firstly I have not bossed anyone or the discussion as a whole, secondly I am merely articulating my position, based on my walk. I do not claim dominion over anyone’s faith, although I suggest you cower behind your husband or the patriarch of your family .

It’s obvious that more than scripture informs your responses and line of reasoning. I said quite clearly that a congregation with SQE does not need oversight. Plain and simple. Meaning, as any reasonable person would have figured (or asked if they didn’t), that the SQE provide oversight for the congregation, but there is no need for any external or outside oversight.

Further from all that had gone before, it was obvious that I felt overall shepherding of the flock was the duty of SQE. It would help if you stuck to articulating your beliefs and not your outrage at me or you mis-interpretation of mine .

An overblown and wordy post on the basis of willful misrepresentation. Add that to you list of sins (redefining re-engineering etc.) .

I guess another one I should simply ignore. If I find anything worthy of response, I’ll be sure to do so.

God bless
TV

TayoD:
Thatnks so much for your input. My persuasuins are exact same with yours with regards to the scriptures you've been discussing. I mentioned earlier in the debate that I will get to the various scriptures that TV and Sage use to propagate their male pre-eminence but you pre-empt me.

Oh man! that's harsh, labelling me a chauvinist pig .

I am not suggesting male pre-eminence. Just differing aeas of ministerial duty. Who ever said that eldership was about pre-eminence? Not in singular or plurality. You appear to be confusing the biblical outline of servant-leadership, with the bombast and excess of modern day MOG's. If people truly understood the hardship, rigours and privation suffered by those "pre-eminent" in the early church, they'd run a mile.

TayoD:
In any case, I held back from discussing the scriptures because I believe a foundation needed to be laid, and while I have been unequivocal about my stand, TV has been playing it both ways. I'll explain.

Oh man!!
Now you are calling me "forked tongued"

TayoD:
I feel the foundation that needs to be laid for this discussion is the equality in all aspects of relationship between both sexes. The only time a male gets pre-eminence over a female is within the marriage relationship. Within the Body of Christ, we are regarded as one. While TV says he agrees with this on one hand, he violates that basic principle in reserving some roles for women within the body. I wonder why he kesps saying that a woman can not exercise authority over mature male because he feels that will be usurping authority over the mature male. But he has failed to realise that the only mature male a female can usurp authority over is her husband. No matter how mature you are, you have no ounce of authority over my wife. My wife's submission to the authorities in church is not because of their sex, but because of the office they occupy as Christ's representative.

In creation, in salvatio, in value, in worth and in complementing each other in union, men and women are equals. In service as in union, they may have more to do in certain areas.

In a family relationship it's husbands that can be usurped
In a church relationship, it's divinely instituted eldership authority that can be.
As no man has authority over anyone but his wife, no woman has authority over any mature man.

TayoD:
The only seeming "advantage" the scripture testifies that a male has over a female is the fact that the female is regarded has having a weaker vessel, and we know that relates solely to the flesh. If the role of elders have nothing to do with how strong a person is, why set the women aside then? The whole argument just doesn't make sense to me.

So theny are not equal? Talk of forked tongues !

Weaker vessel = Solely to the flesh? ~ The  woman being decieved = ??

If in the church, there is UGE, why cannot women teach? If the only difference is physical strength. and nothing else, why can't they teach?

God bless
TV