₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
@rabzy
I really commend your efforts to reveal the truth about tithes to our brethren here on nairaland. But i must warn you pilgrim.1 viaro would run you round in circles. She is adept at twisting biblical facts and standing the obvious truths on it's head. She would also grasp at staws all in an attempt to wear you out and create an impression that there are flaws in your logic. She knows the truth about tithes but i suspect she has pact with the devil to continuosly twist scripture in the promotion of this dubious and herectic practie which is dis-crediting christianity and bringing the true gospel to redicle all becos of love for filthy lucre which the bible consistently and vehemently warned us about

You really can't resist being the calcified schmuck you are, can you? I'm having a decent discussion with rabzy, not the girlie in skirt called KunleOshob. Let rabzy himself/herself offer a feedback on what I addressed concerning the assertions he/she made - it's not up to you to spew illiterate conclusions laced with insolence at my rejoinders. Complete idiots like you go about pointing twisted fingers to demonize other people when your own stingy self-serving denomination stands at a lamppost arguing against giving but robbing you at the same time by calling it a "donation". I've warned you before: you can discuss without misrepresenting me or anyone else, and drop your puerile invectives at my posts; but if you can't afford to contain your sanity (prolly because you have none), then I shall follow through with my warning to not entertain idiocy from conceited twerps like you - Proverbs 26:5.

Deep Sight:
← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [size=16pt][1] [/size] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity →

Where the [1] = The singularity = The oneness of Infinity = God.

The idea of a Oneness of Infinity in abstract terms conclusively proves the existence of God.

Huh?? ??

Oneness of infinity (as outlined in that interesting formula up there) "conclusively proves" nothing about the existence of God, I'm deeply sorry to announce. In just about the same way, the same formula could be used to argue for the "conclusive proof" of existence of anything at all!

No, Deep Sight, the OP there was not significant enough to convey your persuasion and may only be circling around a "given". Now please pardon my ignorance upfront, I could be wrong somewhere; but I'd be glad to see a bit more development to that theory/theorem.

Whatz hapining happeeeneen happening hia??

Guys, le-mee read some and decode, eh?


_{Davidylan, it would be nice to discuss without the knife blows, you know. We know sometimes others tend to be "stupid" (yes, it's always "others" when they disagree with us. . . but that is seriously confusing issues for me (just like poor old Dawkins who wields a scimitar at fellow scientists for not joining in on his new atheism crusades. A discussion would be nice, no?}

rabzy:
Tithes were never deemed to be too much, if there were surplus, they were stored in store houses built specifically for such purpose.

There were no store houses commanded by the Law of Moses to be built for tithes. The store houses was not part of the Mosaic Law; but several anti-tithing theologians miss that point and miscalculate other arguments against Malachi 3.

Fallacy # (b) "he gave the rest (ie., 90%) back to the king of Sodom"

. . (4) he gave the 90% to the king of Sodom.??

#4. That’s another often recycled fallacy, and it may shock these folks that Genesis 14:18-24 does not teach that Abraham gave the 90% of the spoils to the king of Sodom. It is merely assumed by many people that he did so; and this assumption is completely unsupported by the verses cited for it, nor by any other verses in the Bible, nor even by the external references cited for it (such as Hugo Grotius’ “De Jure Belli ac Pacis”). Here are reasons why the king of Sodom did not get a 90% from Abraham:

[list](a) What could possibly be meant by Abraham’s response to the king of Sodom in verses 22-24? It’s easy to see – the moment we ignore what Melchizedek said to Abraham (because people dubiously see “pagan tithes” there), then we miss everything else. It was the Most High God that gave everything to Abraham – that was what Melchizedek recognized when he blessed Abraham: “blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand” (Gen. 14:20).[/list]

[list](b) From the same inference given in Deut. 20:14 (”and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies“), we can understand WHY Abraham made the statement in Gen. 14:24 – “Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; LET THEM HAVE THEIR PORTION“. Abraham was not presiding or adjudicating over what did not belong to him; indeed, it would have been wrong of him to have taken what was not his in the victory of that war and then given them to other people (Melchizedek; and his confederates – Aner, Eschol and Mamre). Melchizedek’s pronouncements in Gen. 14:20 (”the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand”) should not be ignored when reading the verses following therefrom.[/list]

[list](c) Now if Abraham gave 90% to the king of Sodom, what “portion” was he referring to in verse 24 – “and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion“? The spoils belong to the conquerors (according to Deut. 20:12-14); therefore, Russell and his colleagues would have to intelligently explain where Abraham got the “portion” for his confederates if he gave 90% to the king of Sodom.[/list]

The inconsistencies and vacant assertions often made by many anti-tithers leave one wondering if they have a good grasp of what they argue. Hopefully, as these are examined, they will become redundant and consequently retired.

There, I hope those few would help sort out the miscalculated argument in your assertions for you.

rabzy:
Now the tithe given by Abraham was voluntary (which is not the case with the israelites), it was not agricultural in fact it included humans, it was spoils of war (which is not a tithe in Israel, in fact they were to devote most spoils of war to destruction). Then they were not even Abrahams own, he did not keep any part to himself, he gave tenth-part to King MZK, and the remaining he gave back to the King of Sodom, He pointedly said the spoils were not his.

Now, this recent argument is interesting, but deeply flawed . . very deeply flawed.

It is interesting in the sense that you recognized Abraham's tithes to have been voluntary, which is a huge statement to help anti-tithers see the very fact that tithing in the Bible are not to be made always "compulsory" anytime they seek to argue the topic.

However, there are several points where your arguments as highlighted in blue are flawed. It's not a new argument; so I shall just go to another blog where that very idea has been retired. Enjoy.

---

One of the classical miscalculated arguments of anti-tithers with respect to Abraham's tithes are that -

        (a) they were not his own

        (b) he gave the rest (ie., 90%) back to the king of Sodom.

Many anti-tithing theologians have been recycling those flawed arguments so many times in many blogs and fora; and it needs mentioning here that such an argument has been retired and bursted, and the theologians have never been able to counter the responses. Here's an example excerpted from one such blog (Wealth From The Bible.com) to address these two miscalculated arguments:

Fallacy # (a) "they were not his own"

. . (2) not his own property,


#3. Actually, the spoils of war belonged to Abraham, for that’s what Scripture teaches. You do not take someone else’s property and adjudicate over them in any way if they do not belong to you – that would be theft, and would seriously violate the principles of conscience and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Here are reasons why the “not his own property” argument is a fallacy:

[list](a). First, the Bible warns against the practice of interpreting a verse all by itself without comparing it with other verses – “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). What many folks have done is interpret those verses in Gen. 14:18-24 ‘privately’ on their own without comparing them with other verses to see if their assumptions stand.[/list]

[list](b). Hence, the fact that the spoils of war belonged to Abraham is found in Melchizedek’s declaration: “blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand” (Gen. 14:20). When you read the OT, you find the statement that God would deliver their enemies into their hands meant clearly that the spoils belonged to the conquerors. See Deut. 20:12-14 for example (emphasis mine) -[/list]

[list][list]“…And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and ALL that is in the city, even ALL the spoil THEREOF, shalt thou take unto THYSELF; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”
[/list][/list]

Thus, to argue that the spoils were not Abraham’s is to deny Scripture and read one’s eisegesis into the text.

[list](c) Now if the spoils did not belong to Abraham, there’s a serious question for Russell and his colleagues: why would Abraham take something that was not his and give to other people (Melchizedek, Aner, Eschol and Mamre)? That Abraham gave all the spoils away does not negate the fact that they belonged to him in the first place – for it would make absolutely no sense at all for him to have treated the spoils as his own in presiding over them, if the spoils did not belong to him in the first place.

Even Hugo Grotius’ “De Jure Belli ac Pacis” cited by Russell strongly makes the point that the spoils belonged to the conqueror Abraham, as quoted earlier: “…the Law Giver Himself. . . gives ALL the spoils to the conqueror” (http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_306.htm) – the very same fact explicated in Deut. 20:12-14.[/list]

Perhaps it never occurred to Russell that his ‘private interpretation’ was violating 2 Pet. 1:20; and that Melchizedek’s pronouncements in Gen. 14:20 clearly agrees with Deut. 20:12-14.

rabzy:
Well i guess i did not bother to go thru all your arguments and i dont know where you are argueing from.

No offenses about not going through mine.

Now this is what i am saying maybe we can start from there.

The thithing law was strictly an israelite thing which was part of the constitution of the Israelites and therefore a duty for them to keep and when they renege from keeping the law Nehemiah castigated them for neglecting their duties, Malachi said they were robbing God for not paying their tithes.

No worries there either.

This paying of a fixed amount, a tenth part of their agricultural produce was meant to keep the levites and priests who had to be cared for during their service at the temple. Then there is another tithe which they share with levites, widows, and orphans, which everybody joins in eating. These arrangements of fixed payment or tithing were for an Israelite setup and should not be extended to our time.

Glad to read your sensible distinctions between both types of tithes (that should help some of our friends who see only one type of tithe all through their discussions).

However, the insinuation of "extended" is not quite a balanced idea. I am not one of those who argues literalism in Scripture; I would rather see principles instead of clones. And there's no denying the very fact that such a principle (as you described for Jewish tithing) is found for Christians in the NT - please read 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 carefully. When one adopts a literal presupposition in reading God's Word, it would not be long before they run into huge insurmountable problems.

An individual can choose to pay a tenth of his salary to God, or 5% or 50%, that should be a voluntary contribution and cannot be enforced and should not even be called a tithe but rather free-giving. Tithes were strictly for agricultural produce of the Israelites and was enforced by the Law. It would be gross negligence if an Israelite refuse to pay his tithe.

Why should a "tenth" not be called a "tithe"? There really is no need to feel uncomfortable with that term. To suggest another term ('free-giving' etc) for that would be simply biased, nothing more than that. For me, I am quite at home to use the term "tithe" if anyone chooses to give a tenth of their income - and they do so voluntarily and not because it is enforced upon them. This does not mean thereby that they are giving such a percentage in order to fulfill any codes in Judaism.

The tenth-part given by Abraham and the one offered by Isaac were not the same with the one prescribed by the law.

Welcome to my world!  That is the one point I have tried repeatedly to make!
Now, if Abraham's tithes are different from what the Law prescribed, why do we often tend to read the totality of tithes as if it rested alone on the dictates of the Law?

You said it was incorporated into the law, from where was it incorporated into the law and how is this binding on Christians. Let me know your viewpoint, so we can see where our thots converge or diverge and then we can pick it from there.
Cheers

By "incorporated", I simply meant that tithes were already in existence before the Law was given - the Law did not therefore originate it. That being the case, one should not be arguing Biblical tithes solely on the basis of the Law that came far later, for that would be like someone trying to argue that people did not know the same God long before the Mosaic Law was given to Israel!

Second, my discussions have never been based on making anything "binding" on anyone. People who promote an anti-tithing argument on the basis of whether it is 'binding' or not are simply wasting their time. Nobody made it "binding" upon Abraham in the first place; so why do people often resort to this mistake every time in discussing the topic?

rabzy:
There are no laws that says Christians should not travel to the temple in Jerusalem three times in a year to worship, there are no laws that states Christians should stop paying the temple tax (exo 30: 11-16, 2Cor:6-10), there is no law that says when Christians touch a dead body they should not remain unclean for 3 or 7 days, there is no law that says Christians should stop putting fringes at the edge of their garments, there is no law that says we should not have city of refuge for unintentional manslayers,  i could go on for ages. The Big question is why did we stop?

You may not be aware that you're making my point exactly! If you had understood in the first place that all the things you listed were never given to any Gentile by any Law, you would not be basing your arguments every single time upon Judaism at all - for to do so is to miss the essential issue by many miles indeed!

I don't get your correlation between Exodus 30:11-16 and 2 Corinthians 6-10 for the Temple Tax. Even there again, you're missing the whole point! The Mosaic Law was not given to Gentiles who have become Christians; so predicating your arguments on the Mosaic Law is not quite helping your cause. May I urge that you do a bit more study to see the place of Judaism before assuming to argue your assumptions on that system?

However, your question highlights the issue: "why did we stop"? Let's see from your next line:

Did law clearly originated tithing to God, it was never a religious obligation before the coming of the mosaic law. Please furnish me with examples that are Pre-moses.

Lol, I am staggered for your sake at the way you're trying to set forth your ideas. Let me help you:

(a) you asked: "Did law clearly originated tithing to God" -
I already stated in post #539 that "the Law did not originate" tithing;
that being so, what was your point in asking that question? It just becomes irrelevant, innit?

(b) yours: "it was never a religious obligation before the coming of the mosaic law" -
sorry, I'm not one of those that argues an "obligation" for the whole revelation of tithing in the Bible. To draw in this idea of "obligation" is to argue from a wrong inference and muddy the waters.

(c) yours: "Please furnish me with examples that are Pre-moses"
If I had argued that it was an "obligation" before Moses, then your question would have been necessary; but since that was not my argument, it therefore is quite misplaced. It would sound like the only thing you see in Scripture about tithing is when it is tied to an "obligation" - but if that is not so, I don't see the necessity of your query. Which is why your next question is quite in place as far as my position is concerned:

Well where are those places where it is not an obligation and let us discuss them together.

We all know the example of Abraham and Levi - these are just two examples specifically mentioned and discussed in the Bible outside of the Mosaic Law. In both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:4 & 6), we know that Abraham's tithes were not given by any "obligations" - if you find an "obligation" in those instances, please bring 'em forward and we shall discuss accordingly. If (under assumption) you seem to think that tithes are everywhere and in every instances "obligatory" in Scripture, you might surprise yourself when carefully reading those texts.

I know there are different forms of tithes, but give such examples so the 'oiling' can begin.

As above. 

ogajim:
We need to remember who we serve and also the fact that LOVE is an important ingredient in our quest for salvation, we can disagree in an amicable way.

Anyone who has not seen any abuse of giving and tithes is lucky to be in a safe worship environment or simply unaware of their surroundings in a position some would call "head buried in the sand", giving a tithe or offering to the local clergy and leaving it at that to me sounds like "outsourcing" in which case some folks think of their money working for them when they can do it themselves, this doesn't mean we should not support our local assembly in some ways since we join others to worship and fellowship there.

It's amazing that more and more anti-tithers are only beginning to see a bit of balance in issues like this. Certainly, there are abuses in many, many things - which includes GIVING and TITHES, etc, etc. Those abuses are not peculiar or restricted to just our giving in one form or another. So I really don't see how anyone would be assuming that we have not seen these abuses, for the abuses in themselves are NOT the reason for making the tithes into a heretical matter.

However, these abuses in themselves do not necessarily disqualify Christians from either GIVING or TITHING. It is when some people make themselves into ANTI-tithers that they get into unnecessary arguments that are just plain miscalculated. Just because there are 'abuses' and financial scandals do not mean we should divide the Body of Christ on meaningless arguments - just as it would be meaningless to divide the Body on the basis of abuses on GIVING!

Money is not everything in our WALK, let's work on strengthening our faith and helping others in their quest for salvation instead of trying to outdo one another in what we think is the right way as each and every one of us will have to "work out his/her salvation with fear and trembling"

True talk. Even Matthew 25 that you quoted shows that our love for others should be practical, not merely verbal. To be practical would involve our giving - whether we do so as tithes, or as donations, or as alms, or as offerings in one form or another. To be an "anti"-this and "anti"-that is unnecessary if we do not know how to love in practical terms.

rabzy:
It does not have to be stated, but looking at all references, looking at the purpose for which tithing was instituted and also the fact that we are clearly no longer under the mosaic law, which was a constitution for the physical nation of Israel, then it could be clearly discerned that it is not a Christian Obligation.

Allow me to highlight the several mistakes anti-tithers make:

(1) somehow I anticipated that you would not find any verse that states that Christians are asked to stop tithing. Although some may argue otherwise, any sane and careful study would show there is not a single verse where it was ever 'stated' that people should stop tithing.

(2) the Law did not originate, but rather incorporated, tithing. Therefore, to argue the "purpose" of tithing from the mosaic Law is skewed, because it ignores what was revealed before the Law.

(3) tithing in the whole Bible is not taught everywhere as an "obligation". To often draw in this sentimentality about "obligation" would necessitate the question I asked earlier: 'what type of giving is a "Christian obligation"?' One does not have to see our giving as "obligatory" before we can discern the anti-tithing argument is a farce.

Pastors abusing it is not the reason why it is not relevant, the fact that joyfully revel in collecting (with so much force) what is not obligatory and become shamefully enriched by it, makes it annoying and worthy of mention.

I like the way you put that statement across. Abuses are not the reason why tithing is irrelevant or heretical or whatever anti-tithers make of it. Indeed, we have noted the abuses on several counts; but it is undeniable that even if tithes were never mentioned once in the Bible, abusers would always find means and ways to carry on their adventures. One should not therefore be "annoyed" by tithing itself simply because some people have abused its spiritual meaning - it would be the same thing as being "annoyed" at the Name of Christ because people have abused the glory of that Name and enriched themselves thereby.

I would start quoting scriptures when the conversation is well salted enough to be oiled.

Regards

Lol, I like your 'salted' to be 'oiled' expression; and it would be great to see if you have anything fresh to quote that we have not seen, read, argued, and retired. Enjoy.

Hi rabzy, and welcome to the discussion.

rabzy:
It has no place in the christian congregation and more so it has been serially abused by dubious pastors, but going strictly by the scriptures, tithing is not part of christian obligation.

Could I start off by asking you:
(a) what type of giving has not been abused by dubious pastors?
(b) what type of giving is a "christian obligation"?

@ogajim,  how are you today? Do you mind me entering a convo yet with you? Thank you in advance.

I dare say that you made some good summary; but we should not be so strained when making any point. Here's a cheers for your efforts.

ogajim:
Tithe is a form of giving If so why cap it at 10%

Although tithing is a form of giving, Christians (and even those under Judaism) do not 'cap' their giving at 10%. I think this is where some of our friends of the anti-tithing group get it all wrong (and perhaps you drew that from some notable anti-tithing theologians). The 'cap' thing is a wrong inference to interpolate in this discussion.

What I have tried to say over and over was that if folks decide in their hearts to give a certain % at whatever frequency, fine but for an "MOG" or "pastor" to call it a requirement, it is wrong doctrine.

Yay!

Man can't decide for God, anytime I have seen "tithe" mentioned in the Bible, it was never used in a singular sense, it was always tithe of produce of the land or livestock, there was money even in Mosaic times.

Bro, I don't know what you meant; but the highlight is difficult to defend - check Scripture and you'll see there's both "tithe" (singular) and "tithes" (plural), Nehemiah 10:38.

Giving is fundamental to our faith but ONLY for those who can afford it, where are the Levites today to collect the "tithe of the land"? Gentiles were made to pay it too?

Nah, you're again drawing very far-fetched inferences.
[list][li]Tithing is not restricted to the Levites, else Abraham's tithes would never have been mentioned in the Bible.[/li]
[li]Second, Abraham was not a Levite when he gave tithes to Melchizedek. So making that strained idea about where are the Levites to collect tithes today is simply reasoning from the wrong platform (Melchizedek was not even a Levite either)[/li]
[li]Third, tithes were given to members of other tribes who were poor, and not only to the Levites.[/li]
[li]Fourth, even some believers who could not afford it also gave of the very little that they had - it is all there in Scripture.[/li][/list]
This was why I would not be confident to cheer your strained and far-reaching assertions.

The coming and death of Jesus Christ so "that MAN no more may die", "That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin", etc CLEARED us and gave us a new life.

Nada, bro. . nada. Tithes were never given in Scripture as having anything to do with cleaning of sin or bearing a burden connected with salvation. Another way to say this (as I've read somewhere) is that tithes are not salvific matters. I hope you can see that point, and not draw it to something it never was given for in the first place.

God is interested in our HEART and SOUL and how we keep it clean from the "devourer" and not how much we can contribute to the local worship assembly place, the sale of indulgence can't be brought back.

Yay!

We can disagree like Christians and keep each other in prayers but never stoop so low in our exchange which can only be pleasing to the ears of the devourer.

Superb. Thumbs up! _{now where is that emoticon for the thumbs up??}

Pastor AIO:
That is why I suggest that each person should speak for his or herself rather than hiding behind the blanket term Anglicans.

I dare mention that the way you stated that was quite misleading. Please see what you had argued from the very first reply post #1 on the previous page. Between the Catholic and Anglican churches, you had stated that "doctrinally they are the same." That is something which many Anglicans as Anglican object to - and to recently direct your "hiding behind the blanket term Anglicans" at dgreatrock is equally misleading. One may argue that you had assumed too far a generalised position of what is 'Anglican' without due consideration to the fact that there is a MAJORITY of Anglicans that are grossly misrepresented by your assumptions.

Mary and saints is not the only issue. Also there is the matter of whether the wine and bread are transubstantiated in the blood and flesh or is it merely symbolic. and more and more. If we are going to get very petty then I might as well point out that no two people can think exactly the same things on any matter, not to talk of a multiple number of issues involving much intellectual intricacy. Perhaps there no such thing as a doctrinal basis for a church.

I don't see how outlining clear distinctions should be seen as getting petty. When you assumed that "doctrinally they are the same", those who objected have shown that they do not agree with that assumption.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4801322#msg4801322 date=1256553950]
1. Impletratoria, denoting those which are designed to procure some favor or benefit, which is where the HIPHIL falls in,meaning an act to provoke anther act as was shown in Mal.3

2. Eucharistica, those which are expressive of gratitude for bounties or mercies received; this is where the Abraham tithing fall (which in hebrew means QAL - giving out of gratitude)

3. Piacularia, those which are meant to atone for sins and propitiate the Deity, this is where we have the SIN offering, BURNT offering, HEAVE offering all fall under also called PIEL, this is usually in form of an instruction, as was also the TITHES instructed by the Israelites[/quote]M-e-n!! Tonye-t! I'm speechless! I never realised these distinctions until I read your post. Thank you for challenging me to do further studies on these matters. That was brilliant.

Pastor AIO:
I don't want to get into a long drawn out things over definitions and categorisations. I don't have the energy. Maybe I'm just getting old. But it is messy. Do we therefore consider Aladuras to be Anglican afterall they have their 'heritage and origin' from Canterbury. Can we cast every catholic into the 'catholic mold' never mind anglicans etc?

My answer to both questions: NO.

But isn't that the point that has gone before us already? The point is that some Anglicans do not represent all Anglicans; so it is not quite appropriate to speak in general terms that 'Anglicans' do this and that without giving any consideration to those who identify as Anglicans and yet differ on that assumption.

Pastor AIO:
When I say Anglican I mean an administrative body that takes its orders penultimately from the Archbishop of Canterbury and ultimately from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Doctrines may differ within the administrative body and in fact some doctrines within may be more similar to those from another administrative body, but what makes you Anglican is the administrative body you belong to and not the strictly doctrines you espouse.

Otherwise we would have to call most Aladuras Anglicans too. They came out of the Anglican church and still share the same liturgy in many respects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladura


If we labelled churches according to doctrine then how many details have to be in agreement before 2 churches can be said to be the same church.

I think you're completely missing the point. Completely.

Think about it for a moment: what makes some churches 'Anglican' and yet differ from 'Anglican'? Is it not differences in doctrine? For whatever you may argue, at least it should be clear to you that several people here who raise objections do so on doctrinal grounds and not on relationships to any Canterbury.

Although I do not have the vantage point of speaking for Anglicans (myself being neither Catholic nor Anglican), the point is simply that not all Anglicans are to be cast in the Catholic mold. Foundational to this is the fact that doctrine is at the heart of what identifies any particular group - where they take orders from is simply a secondary issue.

Take the example of the Episcopal Church. We know that body is the Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States and parts of Europe (besides several other countries). The question, therefore, is whether a particular church as 'Anglican' is in the "Communion" (i.e., 'Anglican Communion'). As such, Episcopalians (which is the same as 'Anglican Communion' in the USA) do NOT pray to Saints nor ask Saints to intercede for them with God. Some may confuse this position and try to misquote some sources to argue that Anglicans pray to Saints, but that is just not going to cut it. Certainly, some Anglicans within the Communion pray to Saints; but that does not hold true for MAJORITY of Anglicans (i.e., Episcopalians).

On the question of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 'Anglican Communion' officially recognizes that some Anglican Churches are actually 'Anglican' even though they may not receive their orders from Canterbury. So I do not risk misquoting them, this is how they put it:

[list]It is entirely possible for a church to be in full communion with the Anglican Church without being in the Anglican Communion. It is also entirely possible for a church to be completely Anglican in heritage and origin, but for it not to be in communion with the See of Canterbury[/list]

Again, while you're correct in pointing out that 'Anglican' may mean an administrative body that takes its orders penultimately from the Archbishop of Canterbury; that is not representative of the majority of other truly Anglican churches that do not take orders from the See of Canterbury. These latter are sometimes known as either Anglican or Episcopalian - and they do NOT hold the Roman Catholic traditions already identified on several counts.

Pastor AIO:
So is this the anglican prayer book or not?

http://books.google.com/books?id=jN4wspXqHBkC&pg=PA730&lpg=PA730&dq=alma+redemptoris+mater+anglican&source=bl&ots=ZbO84AQQXk&sig=u5o0Ae5aneOjzU76d_xUraVqQ28&hl=en&ei=0hTgSsyAFoiF4Qac8ogh&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

No doubt it is.

However, as has been observed, not every Anglican prays to Mary; and some who do so are not speaking on behalf of "all" Anglicans. One cannot claim that 'ALL' Anglicans do this or the other simply by looking at only "some" who do so - there are many Anglicans who do not follow the doctrines of Catholic anglicanism.

Okay, this is not so recent news; but I wonder what crosses your mind after reading it. For me, I marvel at the intricacies of the human body.

Disclaimer: please do not experiment or try this at home to see whether you can survive or not.

(mods: I'm not too sure where to post it; so if you think another motherboard is more appropriate, please move accordingly).

---

A two-year-old girl has made an almost complete recovery after spending nearly 20 minutes at the bottom of a pool. Scans showed Oluchi Nwaubani had been starved of oxygen for some 18 minutes - three times longer than the brain can usually survive - in Bromley, London. Despite being warned that even if she were to live she may never walk or talk again, her parents say she can run around and say "what she wants".

Doctors say while the case is highly unusual, it is not unprecedented.

Prompt response by both ambulance and helicopter to the scene of the accident in south London last September may well have made the difference between life and death.

Oluchi was rapidly airlifted to the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel before being transferred for specialist care to Great Ormond Street - after three days she was breathing again on her own. As well as the rapid, high level of intensive care Oluchi received, her youth combined with the cold water may also have helped her beat the odds.

"Contrary to popular belief small children are quite strong - they have very healthy hearts, lungs and brains," says Ffion Davies, an A&E consultant and member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

"On top of that, the cold water will have slowed down the body's metabolism and so you can actually survive quite a long period without oxygen." Children cool faster than adults because they have a higher ratio of surface area to weight than adults.

Oluchi's case may be unusual but there have been several such cases of both children and adults surviving prolonged periods under water in recent years. Last year, a 35-year-old London architect was found floating in the water off Cape Town: when dragged to shore he was not breathing and had no pulse. While it is not clear how long John Deeks spent under water, it is thought he was without a pulse for as long as an hour. Cool water is thought to have played a part in his survival - the water he was swimming in was likely to have been around 15C (60F).

There have also been a string of cases documented in the US. Oluchi's case is put into perspective by that of Michelle Funk, who was also two when she was submerged in a cold Utah river for nearly 70 minutes in 1986. Doctors published an article on her progress in 1988, by which time she had essentially returned to normal.

Three months on from the accident, Oluchi's parents are hopeful of a full recovery. They say movement is currently the main problem. "Nevertheless she is now on her feet - she's walking, she's running, and her speech is very good," says her mother, Tayo. "She's all over the place. You can't keep her down."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7881143.stm

OLAADEGBU:
For those living in the UK there will be a London's fresh focus Conference 2009.  You can even participate live as you join us in the web telecast.  Click on the link below for more details.  Date: 21-25th of October, 2009. 

www.freshfocus.org.uk

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of NL members who may be interested. I've taken some time to watch the clips and was refreshed to see the efforts of the ministers within UK. Rev. Hugh Osgood's efforts are to be commended in trying to help Christians towards an atmosphere of unity.

dgreatrock:
Well to tell you the truth, these Anglicans do not represent the majority of anglicans world-wide. As an Anglican, i feel uncomfortable with praying to Mary or asking help of so-called saints. these are humans whom Christ died to save and nothing in scriptures tells me that i can approach the Father through any of em! to me, That is the major difference between Anglicans and Roman Catholics

I feel you, dgreatrock; and you make absolutely perfect sense especially in the bold in your quote.

Although I do not have the vantage of a firsthand experience to know exactly how this matter stands, it seems to me that not every church with the name 'Anglican' is actually 'Anglican'. From experience, some Anglican churches follow forms of worship and belief that are closely identical to Roman Catholic. On the other hand, some other Anglicans do not follow such patterns but hold their own beliefs and doctrines on many matters.

As to the first, I cannot remember now, but one of my friends gave me a list of some churches which are not in the Anglican communion even though they actually have 'Anglican' or 'Catholic' in their official names. Examples include:

[list][li]Anglican Catholic Church[/li]
[li]Apostolic Anglican Church[/li]
[li]All Nations Anglican Church[/li]
[li]The Catholic Anglican Church[/li]
[li]Anglican Orthodox Church[/li]
[li]Anglican Church Worldwide[/li][/list]

You can imagine my surprise; but he explained that there are conditions for any church to meet in order to be recognized as 'part of the Anglican Communion'. Well. .  there.

However, let us understand that in many countries, the churches in the 'Communion' are either called 'Anglican' or 'Episcopal'. For example, if you check Wikipedia, you would find that the Episcopal Church is the Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States, Honduras, Taiwan, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, the British Virgin Islands and parts of Europe. It is such diversities that we should bear in mind when thinking on these issues and why one may find that not all "Anglicans" (as Anglicans) hold the same convictions about certain doctrines or worship styles.

To illustrate your point, dgreatrock, here's an example of why I believe you actually know what you're talking about. There are some Anglicans that do not pray to Mary or through any saints at all. Here is an excerpt:

[list]3. Many Roman Catholics believe their prayers must have an intercessor, like the Blessed Virgin, a Saint or a priest, who in turn brings these prayers to God. They often use statues, pictures or icons as part of this worship.

While some of us use icons, pictures and/or statues of Saints, Martyrs and events to focus our thoughts and prayers, we do not pray to the Saints or venerate icons or other images. Neither do we ask Saints to intercede for us with God. We pray to God directly. We do not need to have our prayers go through a priest, being able to talk with God directly. We may ask the congregation to add their prayers to ours when we are in need. We also offer thanks to Saints for the example of their lives.

---

5. The Roman Church maintains, as a matter of doctrine, that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin her entire life.
We make no such statement as it is unclear if the Gospels refer to Christ's full brothers and sisters or Joseph's children from another wife (Mark 3:31-35).

---

10. According to Roman faith, almost all human souls enter a kind of holding area (like going through customs at the airport) after death so that they may be cleansed of their sinful nature. This is called Purgatory, the place of purging. Prayers of friends and loved ones are a large part of a soul's release from there and into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Episcopalians do not hold this belief as fact. The Articles of Religion state that this is "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but is rather repugnant to the Word of God" (Book of Common Prayer, Articles of Religion, XXII, page 872).

---

source:  http://www.graceepiscopal-chillicothe.org/We%20Believe.html [/list]

So, it is for reasons like this that I think we should note the distinctions and understand why many Anglicans may not be comfortable being cast in a general mold.

matrim:
it seems the major difference and obstacle to unity btw the catholics and anglicans from which all other differences arise viz praying to mortals etc is the catholic theory of papal infallibility.One wondeers how any thinking man can subscribe to that belief.

Well, I don't know much about people subscribing to any belief one way or another; but I'd rather say we can let people hold their beliefs without thinking that our own are superior to theirs. Let's just say we are different. My 2 shillings.

chukwudi44:
your stupidity and penchant for mischief is already known by everyone on this site.

chukuwdi, rather than try so hard to repeatedly call for scolding from me, why don't you ever try to discuss? Is it too hard for you to simply discuss and stop being the retard that you are? Since my entry to NL and this thread, there are several people who have rather discussed instead of this infantile attitude you're displaying - you're not "everyone", and the only person crying and taking a very bad hit everytime from me is you! If you need to keep on that page, keep up your pranks and I shall serve you and clean you up.

You acknowlege that compulsoy tithing is wrong yet you go against those who try to expose criminals who preach this heresy

Are you that daft or you have a special talent for being a bozo? I have not tried to make tithing a "requirement" or "demand" nor even "compulsory"; but I most certainly would oppose and expose illiterate shameless "Christian ministers" who deliberately lie to the public about calling 3 rabbis from the L.A. area! When softheads and ding-dongs like you are too much in a haste to "confirm" such puerile duplicity from askelm.com, then you get planked as well for "confirming" their lies!  

I asked you before if they was any pentecpostal churches that practices voluntary tithing and you were only able to come up with only one church out of over 40,000 criminal organisations that call themselves chuirchesif only one out these over 40,000 chueches preaches voluntary tithing,it means that a vast majority of them (99.99999, %) are [practicing thses heresy hse it not call for urgent action against these heretics.

This is where you confirm you're a calcified jerk! Do you know the meaning of your question in post #452? Did you not say "any"? Prior to that in post #444, you argued that "ALL" pentecostal churches insist on a mandatory 10%. I only tried to help you see that your assertion was wrong by showing you an example in direct response to your enquiry about "any" such churches which does not preach a mandatory tithe (post #454)! If you don't know the meaning of "any", you're a twerp! There are several other churches which do not preach mandatory tithes as well; but because the virus from Ernest L. Martin has infected you too badly, you can't see beyond your nose.

I beleive you are benefitting from this scam that why you have decided to defend thsese idiots who call temselves Men of God.

Relax, I'm not benefitting from any scam - not yours, not Ernest Martin's, and certainly not from any such as are from your fellow clowns. The idiots who are too busy lying to the public about some 3 rabbis in the L.A. area are just that: idiots! And jerks like you who keep trying to "confirm" their shameless lies are just that: jerks!

why don,t you show me anywhere in the bible where[b] christians[/b] where directed to pay tithes and then we can talk

Where was Abraham "directed" to pay tithes?

sara j:
There is a new movie coming out in
November about alien abductions
that allegedly took place in Alaska.
The name of the movie is the fourth
kind and it is was written and directed
by Olatunde Osunsanmi and stars Milla
Jovovich.
It looks really interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Kind

An asides: I don't know who Olatunde Osunsanmi is; but that he directed that movie puts a smile on my face. There are a lot of Nigerians gaining respectable mention where it matters. Well done, 'tunde!

ttalks:
I never meant that the law was a requirement for salvation.

Fair enough, I take it back. My mistake may have been taken from your statement that -
"(we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within)". Apologies.

What i meant to imply is that:

Without the law, there wouldn't have been any knowledge or indication for the need for salvation through Christ.
That's what it means by saying; the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ

Okay. Let me leave it there with this subscript:
There are people who were never at any time given "the Law" - they didn't have "the Law" in order to have a knowledge or indication for the need for salvation. I have in mind just an example: Paul's preaching to the heathen. When he said that he "might preach [Christ] among the heathen" (Galatians 1:16), we know that he did not try bring a knowledge of the heathen's need for salvation from the Law. Rather, what he did was skillfully approach his subjects from the common experiences of those he preached to - such as the philosophers at Athens in Acts 17. Go through that chapter, and you won't find Paul trying to highlight their need for salvation from the Law.

But that's just where I should leave that matter on your last quote. However, I'll still look at the "abolish" issue. Thanks.

ttalks:
Based on what i said above, the law is abolished(meaning it is no longer a requirement) in the life of a Christian.

What do you mean by "no longer"? That gives me the idea that it was at one time made a requirement for salvation, but now it is "no longer" so. If that was the case, then what happens to those who were never given such a requirement in the first place? Why should only some people be given such a "requirement" as far as salvation was concerned and others are not given such a requirement?

I don't think the idea of "no longer" is valid - because what you're making it is not what it was made to be in the first place.

2Co 3:7-14
(7)  But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(  How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9)  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(10)  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
(11)  For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
(12)  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(13)  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
(14)  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Also, the law still exists(meaning it isn't destroyed)to continue its purpose of pointing/bringing people to Christ.

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Let's look at 2 Cor. 3:7-14 you quoted. My question is this: what exactly was "abolished"?

There are several things contrasted there; but for all that, I don't think it makes sense to just insert "the Law" in verse 13 to make it read "abolished". Think on the following:

(a) verse speaks about a glory that was to be done away:
      "which glory was to be done away"

(b) verse 13 speaks of "that" which is abolished, but does not say it is the Law;

(c)  verse 14 speaks of a vail which was to be done away -
      "which vail is done away in Christ"

Again, what appears here seems to be (pls note: "seems to be" that those verses are made to argue that the Law is "abolished" whereas that does not stand in light of what they say.

ttalks:
Viaro,

Jesus didn't say,"I didn't come to abolish. . . ." .
Instead he said, "I didn't come to destroy. . . ."

Abolish in greek - καταργέω - katargeō
Destroy in greek - καταλύω - kataluō

They are two obviously different words with different meanings,although almost similar.

Abolish in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - making no longer a standing requirement towards a particular purpose (we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within).
Destroy in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - demolish,disintegrate (but we know this isn't the case of the law since it still serves it purpose to bring/point people to Christ).

Nice.

Obviously, I quoted the ESV on Matt. 5:17 - "I have not come to abolish them". However, your help in distinguishing between 'destroy' and 'abolish' is quite appreciated.

Now I may not know what meaning chukwudi meant for his bold statement that Jesus "abolished" the law. And if I take your meaning, it would seem queer to draw the inference you made; because I have not found anywhere in the Bible where the Law was given as a "requirement" in terms of our salvation. What then happens to those who were never given the Law in the first place? This is why it would be difficult for me to hold the view that the Law is "no longer" a standing requirement - because it was never that in the first place!

But thanks for your helpful inputs (it would make me search a bit more on the subject). However, all points considered, it appears that we're saying the same thing: Jesus did not come to 'destroy/abolish' the Law, quoting Him directly from Matthew 5:17.

ttalks:
Gal 3:23-25
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster[b] to bring us unto Christ[/b], that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The words in bold can be seen as the purpose of the law; . . . to bring us to Christ..

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Just as Pastor AIO said, it was to fulfil the purpose of the law that Christ came; so that we could be in/with/through him.

Thank you, ttalks. Christ came to fulfil the Law; but does that mean the same thing in Matthew 5:17 as He came to "abolish" the Law? If that is so, why then did He categorically say that He did not come to abolish them?

Verse 25 of the galatian passage shows strongly that after that purpose has been fulfilled, we are no longer under the law.

I did not argue to make anyone to be under the Law. I made that point clear just incase anyone might assume otherwise: (see post #33 - "That certainly does not mean that the Christian is under the Law in a literal sense".

This means we do not need that law to function.

The life in the Spirit(life in Christ) is a life superior to that within and by the law of Moses.
It is an advanced level; we do not require the stuff of the beginners level(law of Moses) to function, . . .we can only remember/treat the beginners level stuff as we progress in the advanced level(life in Christ,through the Spirit) as the stuff that got us to the level which we currently are; in Christ.

Our life in Christ or the way we are in that life is a response to the Spirit and not obedience to written laws.
We do not respond to the law of Moses; rather we respond to the law of Christ which is written in our hearts.

The law will and can only serve its purpose; . . . and that is to bring people to Christ, not lead people through Christ. 

Many thanks. For all that, how does Christ's 'fulfilling' the Law translate into the idea that He 'abolished' the Law? You guys should realise that I have not ignored the word "fulfil" - which in post #26 I clearly distinguished from "abolished", using an example from Matthew 3:15. I have not read anyone trying to reconcile these two obviously contrasted statements:

(a) chuks said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"

I certainly trust that we know the difference between "fulfil" and "abolish" - and at the end of the day, they do not mean the same thing at all. If they did, then Jesus would clearly have stated that He actuall came to "abolish" the Law. The point is that the statement in (a) is trying to make Jesus' statement into something directly opposite to what He stated in (b). That being the case, I asked chukwudi to reconcile both statements if he could.

Pastor AIO:
You're quite incredible. Who has translated fulfillment to into discarding? 'fulfillment can lead to discarding' is what I said. Not the word fulfillment means discarding.

How am I incredible, AIO? Did I not clearly state this: "I may agree that fulfillment could lead to the idea of discarding something"? Was that point not made in my reply above?

No, the law is defective. It is a poor attempt to instruct in righteousness. Without the Spirit to properly guide you in righteousness no codes or laws will do the job. No one is talking about discarding the purpose of the Law which is Righteousness. I am talking about the means to achieve righteousness and I say that as a means the law is defective. It is defective intrinsically and extrinsically. The problem is with the Law. It doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry; perhaps you're arguing on personal grounds - and that's okay. However, I don't see how the Law is defective - which was why I quoted Romans 7 to show you the context of what I meant. If after seeing those verses and still maintain that you're directly against what they state, I can allow you to hold your ideas personally. No big deal to me. The problem is with man, not the Law - see again Romans 7:14 - "we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal".

What does Holy mean? It means complete. Whole. Without contamination. How do you fulfill something that is already Whole?

You are not clear here. The word "holy" in my reply was pointing to the Law as being that categorically - "the law is holy" (v. 12). Now if you're saying that I should read "holy" as "complete", then where does that leave your assertion that the Law is "defective"? This was why I am asking that you carefully look at the context of what the references have stated - which I have variously pointed out.

If 'holy' = 'complete'; where then is your argument that the Law is 'defective' since the same Law is 'holy' (ie, 'complete')? Do you see where I'm coming from?

We should also consider the possibility that we are not talking about the same God or about the same spirit.

Oh, I see. In which case it's pointless trying to hold a discourse on such assumptions. Ciao.

chukwudi44:
na who be this one?the tithing practised today is the same with what we have in the bible ?The money you claim is for God ,does it actually get to God ?
experience has shown that monies from scams like this are used in purchase of private jets foe daddy and mummy

(now. , now. , before any anti-intellectual begins to mis-fire, viaro is not nihinlade . . just thot to make that clear before you see the anti-this and anti-that clowns switch over to their national anthems of misrepresenting posters).


However, experience has shown us all one thing: arguments of pro-this and anti-that are simply useless. I have said that very thing so many times. If anyone chooses to tithe of their income - voluntarily - what is the problem there?

@pilgrim,

we will dicuss another day. ve got work to do because am not as jobless as u re

Let pilgrim come answer you; but here's what I can say: you're a confirmed dustbrain!
You should have seen that I'm not here for these silly banters, but I decided to stay a bit more for twerps like you who can't reason or discuss. Look at some of the people who have earned my respect like ogajim. . yea, we had some exchanges; but then he realised I could offer good rapport where posters can invite such. The last time I checked, we ended on a warm note.

But you. . ? You're a 'job' to be cleaned up! I don't hang around NL all day "confirming" stupidity from such folks as Ernest L. Martin! You can curse all you want (make sure an ambulance is close by for your after-effects), but such verbose nonsense from you ought to have been retired. If you can afford to discuss, you're welcome. If you'd rather be teased and stewed up, be my guest and let me clean the smut from your illiterate skull. Twerp!

chukwudi44:
@pilgrim
what the helldou tinkhis topic is all about?
This topc is about criminals like u trying to steal money from innocent victims based on the obsolete mosaic law

Twerp, incase you are still scratching your dustbrain, I have not stolen money from you nor asked it from any of your miserable clowns. I entered this thread with a verse that speaks about the topic of the thread itself: firstfruits - see my post #6. And even in that post, I did not make it a "requirement". Mooncalves like you are too challenged to understand simple statements, so nothing new there. Next!

Pastor AIO:
I didn't say they were the same thing.

Okay, first let me apologise unreservedly - I might have misread your post. The part I took out for my explanations following was to make the point that both words do not mean the same thing, not even when carefully considered in contexts of the verses I already cited to the point. Sorry about that.

Did you read my post?  What do you make of it?  Fulfillment can lead to a discarding of it.  That is my point.  What do you think?

Well, I appreciate your point. What do I think? I may agree with you in some context - but not in the light of what we (chukwudi and I) have been considering. Outside of those verses, I may agree that fulfillment could lead to the idea of discarding something (and there are numerous examples, such as you had given).

But within the context of what Jesus said, 'fulfillment' would be hard to translate into 'discarding'. Especially in the example of "fulfilling all righteousness" - that would not give the sense at all of "discarding all righteousness", get my point?

This is quite a very simple matter; and one of the explanations may have been highlighted in your previous input:

Pastor AIO:
So we need to look at the purpose of the law.  The law is there to guide us in righteousness.  Yet it is defective.  We are merely managing it for want of something better.  If we can find another means to walk in righteousness then it is best to discard the law and go with the better means.

That point resonates with me - the "purpose" of the Law. Without wanting to risk technicalities here, wouldn't it be true to say that the purpose of the Law is not discarded? If we have the idea that it should be thus discarded, we shall find huge and innumerable problems in our Christian faith. It could be argued one way or the other that the Law is defective - but I'm rather of the view that the Law itself (in its intinsic nature) is not defective: rather, the problem is with man. This is why the NT says that the Law is good, spiritual and holy (Rom. 7:12-16). That certainly does not mean that the Christian is under the Law in a literal sense.

I don't know about you but for me I find guidance in righteousness from the spirit of God.  It is superior to anything in the law and therefore I have no qualms about discarding the law completely.  I have got myself the upgrade.  Where the law is the v.1 the Spirit is the V. 2000.  The purpose of the law is thoroughly fulfilled and so the law can be discarded.

Lol, I also find my guidance in righteousness from the Spirit of God. Dare I also observe that it is the same Spirit that shows us why we cannot discard the law completely? How? Tell me: what "law" is said to be hold in Christian marriages, such as 1 Corinthians 7:39? Tell me: what "law" is spoken of concerning loving our neighbour and loving God in Matthew 22:36-40? By just those two examples, should we maintain the idea that we discard the law "completely"? If that is so, then those verses ought not to be referred to in matters concerning Christian mariages and Christians loving God and neighbour - it does not matter any other claim that we are guided by the Spirit while completely discarding what the same Spirit shows us in the NT.