₦airaland Forum

Dear Pastor AIO, thank you for your observations and contributions to this small matter. Just a small point, really. . and nothing personal. But here is essetially where you may have missed the point:

Pastor AIO:
The Law is defective. Otherwise it wouldn't need fulfilling. If you tell a yoruba man that ' ori e o pe', there is no way that he'll understand anything other than his life/destiny is defective. in other words his life can never better lai lai. it is the same thing 'pe' means to be complete/fulfilled.

No, it is not the same thing - "fulfil" and "abolish" are not the same things at all. Not in the context of Matthew 5:17, nor of Matthew 3:15 I quoted earlier in post #26 to distinguish between them. If both words mean the same things, then the latter verse would be reading the same as "it becometh us to abolish all righteousness".

In all of this, whatever anyone may derive for the meanings of those words, it is clear they are NOT the same thing. Nada, zilch. You can see that in contexts of the verses themselves, it would be absolutely skewed to make them the same things; and yet to assert that Jesus abolished the mosaic law is a direct assertion against what He said in Matthew 5:17.

_{All I sought was for an explanation from chukwudi - not name-calling and all sorts. Incase he hadn't noticed, when people discuss free from such insolence, they won't find me returning any such to them. But if they like to do so as the highlight of their style of discussing, I'd oblige them just about the same.}

chukwudi44:
Madam chameleon,why don't you voluntarily  ofer burnt offerings as abraham did abi that one did not precedethe law too.

If anti-tithers want an argument to make people offer burnt offerings, I can see your point. If that was rather your best lame excuse at a simple point, I can also see how hollow you truly are.

Why did Paul condemn the early christians who insisted on circumcision,did circumcision not also precede the law

Paul did not "condemn" any Christian; he rather explained matters to them. The same Paul stated clearly that there is now NO CONDEMNATION to those who are in Christ Jesus (ie, Christians) - Romans 8:1. Confused jerks like you are too much in a hurry to "condemn" everybody just to keep a strong grip on your pious duplicity.

And yes, circumcision is spoken of in the New Testament in its proper meaning - "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter". That was essentially the very same point in one of the writings of Moses, the man of the Law (Deut. 10:16 & 30:6). Twats like you often miss that point because you're strung up on practising your own religiousity by the "letter".

The truth is that criminalslkie u are soon goping to be out of business ,this heresy is already failing in the developed countries like eurpe and the US ,IT ONLY THRIVES IN AFRICA BECAUSE OF THE HIGH LEVEL OF ILLITREACY.

Lol, if I were a criminal, I would see your point. But the reason you're sobbing so hard is because your "confirmed" recycled lies from askelm.com has been exposed for what it was. No, viaro was not the one who exposed Ernest L. Martin (so don't go banging your skull on some hard pavement) - some other smart guys dealt with Martin for the shameless idiot he is, and we have seen how other "Christian ministers" on NL have been busy recycling the same dubious tales as if it was their own originally! For someone to be recycling and "confirming" such hypocritically amusing lies is not only shameful, it is illiterate at best. So I can understand why you're shouting in capital letters.   Go ahead and recycle another ecclesiastical nonsense and "confirm" it again as the quintessetial barge to your charade.

I give just 20 years and I pray you live to witness it ,when children unborn will curse thios present generation of pentecostal leaders .

Hehe-haha!   Why 20 years? Bobs, listen well - your genration of schmos have been cursing everyone they meet in their path. Perhaps you haven't noticed that their own curses have been returning upon their own heads in truckloads!   You're a miserable laff!

This heresy is far worse than the abuse of the sale of indulgencies that cause the priotestant refoprmation.Martin luther will weep whereever he is to day,he tried to correct abuse in the sale of indulgences but ended up creating a group of over 40,000 criminal organisations that exixts only to fleece their members of thier hard earned money.

Good history - the only thing is that you're hooting your usual crap!   Now, I'm not versed in the so-called sale of indulgences (pardon the fact that I'm not Catholic). However, I think you should respect Catholics for whatever they believe even though it does not help your vexations heretofore. Sorry, but that was indeed a weak cry for your theatricals.

the rise of these private criminal organisations is what is attributed for the rise in atheism today in the developed world because people now think religion was created just to make money

That is truly the first time I'm hearing anyone making such a connection. How has tithing been attributed for the rise of atheism today? Are you that dense?   You're just punching the air and desperately gasping for just about anything to hold unto for your anti-tithing arguments. Twerp!

chukwudi44:
Madam pilgrim,

so in essence what u re saying is that the law is till valid abi?

In that case we have to comply with[b] all[/b] the requirements of the law.

Trying to perform one requirement of the law while neglecting the other will attract the curse of the law as plainly stated in gal 3 :10

criminals like you and your pastors have hypocritically discarde the unlucrative portions of the lawwhile at the same time twisting the law of tithing that was meant to be done once in three years and which never involved money to what is now being done daily,weekly and monthly.

You have not stoopped at that u have gone further to even further twist the scriopture by trying to stave your ignorant and hypnotised victims of their entire earnings in the name of one obsolete jewish law called first friut.

The truth is that you will all bountifully receive your reward,I am only fighting this because innocent victims are involved,I would have simply inored vagabond like you using the name of God to commit robbery.

You in particular you are worse than a hypocrite ,you are are chameleon,you just changed your ID but your inner self remains unchanged.The number of atrocities you have committed on this side is second only to the devil

Em, dear girlie. . you have again made yourself a laff! Where's your answer to the simple question I asked you after twisting Jesus direct statement in Matthew 5:17? Is that up there the best shot you can give to that simple question? Huh?

Seeking to attack me is futile, haven't you noticed? No, you haven't - because braindumps like you are too zealous to defend your piously dubious cacophony than reading the text to see what Jesus said directly.

About Galatians 3:10, your argument that performing one "requirement" of the Law is even far more comical! On Nairaland in the other thread on tithes, I've made abundantly clear that my discussions are not based on seeing anything in this regard as a "requirement". You of all dunces would have ignored that fact while trying to misplace your duplicity here. I've said it before - you hardly know anything and are only very good at confirming tales harvested from hypocrites at askelm.com!

Now, now. . girlie. . if you're better than your last reply at spewing your verbose inanity, wake up and reconcile your cretin assertion with what Jesus directly stated in Matthew 5:17. I'll repeat it again for your ease:

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

At least I made a clear distinction between 'fulfil' and 'abolish' in direct response to your post #25. Now, you can either attempt to upgrade your dustbrain and seek intelligently to address your inanity in the face of those two direct statements (a) and (b), or just keep confirming the retard you are.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=342153.msg4788511#msg4788511 date=1256328634]I'm deeply struggling for the sake of deep sight to see the "sense" in the quoted post.[/quote]

This is just another lame attempt at "my religion is better than yours" banter. Notice how he happily associated judaism with islam yet no prizes for guessing this mohammedan is for the extermination of jews and levelling of isreal. I agree with Pastor AIO, Religion does indeed make you Stoopid.

It doesn't take much sense to have seen through the shakerz chap; I just was "struggling" like Tudor to make out how Deep Sight could have been so captivated by shakerz propaganda. But just to show that several others can read between the lines, at least Krayola's response captures it in a nutshell:

Krayola:
You are just spewing the common-place  anti-christian propaganda in your silly "my God is better that yours" campaign that u are trying to disguise as critical engagement of the information u present. . U obviously know very little about the stuff u are posting. Lying ass muslim. Just like the rest of them.

There.
But this one had me in sticthes. .

Incisive my black ass. Elaborate prose is nothing but that. You can't sprinkle sugar on a piece of shit and convince people that it tastes good.

Re: Christian God On The Last Day: telling muslims to burn in hell,

@poster: does that mean that allah would not burn anyone in hell?

Joe50:
Muslim is a religion while christians are christ like. A religion man fight and kills his follow human being while christians love, cheers and cares for his follows.
Many muslims today are becoming christians simply because they no the differece between light and darkness.
Anyway, i don't need to argue with the blind men,
this threat is boring, am out of here.

Joe50:
Muslim is a religion while christians are christ like. A religion man fight and kills his follow human being while christians love, cheers and cares for his follows.
Many muslims today are becoming christians simply because they no the differece between light and darkness.
Anyway, i don't need to argue with the blind men,
this threat is boring, am out of here.

Joe50:
Muslim is a religion while christians are christ like. A religion man fight and kills his follow human being while christians love, cheers and cares for his follows.
Many muslims today are becoming christians simply because they no the differece between light and darkness.
Anyway, i don't need to argue with the blind men,
this threat is boring, am out of here.

@Joe, perhaps you're replying from a phone or something. Just hit the reply botton once and wait a while to see your message appear.

dgreatrock:
Pastor AIO
how can you be so ignorant not to know the difference btw anglicans and roman Catholics?
Anglicans and Roman Catholics are majorly different c/o these Mary & Saints veneration/worship/praying through!

Well, I don't think the highlight is correct. It should be clear to us that pastor AIO acknowledged there are differences between them; although there are some similarities.

This is why I'm so convinced that knocking your brainless head for 72 virgins ain't doing you much good. Take a look:

olabowale:
You throw too much made up words. But y[b]ou had later claimed that you knew enough of Islam[/b] to know that Quran had versions, the very thing that Nezan is blindly arguing without any affirmation.

Now olabowale, can you show me any single line where I ever claimed that I knew enough of Islam? I did not make any such claims _{(which was why I had requested a private chat with Nezan).}

You lying mooncalf! Did I not say that I didn't need to visit any websites to know that there are muslims who lie to the world and themselves? WHERE in this thread did I ever make any such claims that you alleged in your reply above? You're a confirmed lunatic lying schmo . . can't even stay on course to make an honest line.

olabowale:
@Viaro: « #29 on: Today at 01:47:50 AM » The same you who was asking Nezan for private audience to that you can learn from him, the lingo of his lies on Islam? Please man, dont make me laugh at your dishonesty.

olabowale, I cautioned you to not seek to ever engage me with your illiterate megaphonic self-serving pantomimes; but folks like you like to show how dense you can be - so here's just to set you straight.

What is dishonest in asking a poster to share something with me privately? Just what is wrong with that? Did that sound like the roll-call of your progeny? Rather than the private chat, Nezan decided to send me a link - so just what is wrong with that? Unless you're such a mooncalf, what has this thread got to do with your rants?

I will not make it personal,

Do I care any two scoobies whether your whole generation takes it personal? You vroomed into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with mat-spreading, head-banging schmos, and subscripted your post with derogatory remarks directed at specific people here. Then you have the cleverness of a schmuck to quip that you won't make it personal!

and here in america, I have pointed out that many people call themselves "muslims" and they do nothing islamic; Nation of Islam, is the most known. You have the 10 percenter and then the Nubia people which started in Bushwick Brooklyn with Dr. York, now a prisoner in Georgia was the leader, his big brother Obba Obba I have personally argued with, and there are still others! And those in the eastern part of the world to kaaba face the west, and the people in the west (Nigeria is one of them) face east to actually face Kaaba! You know nothing about nothing when it comes to something/anything about Islam (am trying to be a rhyming robbin/robert).

Just a toss of two pence for your low IQ: what has this thread to do with "muslims" or "kabba" or "Islam"? This is why I asked that you turn your melodrama towards the east where you guys are quite used to kocking your heads brainless in hope of your 72 virgins - that should keep you busy and save the crap of trolling threads that have nothing to do with any of thise misadventures in your posts.

chukwudi44:
Do u mind telling me what it means to fulfil a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded?

Hhaha. . m-e-n. . why are you such a laff? Sorry, you're addressing viaro; so would you mind refraining from playing these lazy games? Everyone should know that the culture of 'answering a question with a question' is retard. And repeating that culture of yours like a broken record confirms the small print I left earlier that you're an expert at non-essentials.

I obliged you a simple thought about your pitiful inference of ducking behind the meaning of 'fulfil' - whatever it may mean to you and me, it definitely does not mean the same thing as 'abolish'. If you believe that they are the same, then please consult a dictionary and see the difference before again confirming your piously artful ducking adventures.

Further, to help you see that both words are not the same in meaning, see the example of Matthew 3:15  where Jesus said "it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness". If you never read that verse before, you might assume by your piously vacant argument that 'fulfil' = 'abolish'. . and if that is so, then you might read that verse to mean: 'abolish all righteousness'!  _{>viaro shakes his head!<}

Bobs, let me outline it again:  "fulfil" is NOT the same thing as "abolish" If you think they are, then your argument would make Matthew 3:15 read like this --

  (a) Bible   -   'it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness'
  (b) chuks  -   'it becometh us to abolish all righteousness'

In your majestic intellect sir, do those two statements mean the same thing? Did I hear you grumble a 'no'? Good. Now if they do not mean the same thing, then kindly get off your lazy backside and put on your thinking cap.

---

Having settled your dilemma between 'fulfil' and 'abolish' as not being the same thing, do you mind paying close attention to the simple question I asked you earlier: can you reconcile between your assertion and what Jesus said:

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

Whatever you've claimed is not the same thing as what Jesus boldly declared. You coldly asserted that Jesus "abolished" the mosaic law, and yet we read Jesus Himself saying that NO, He had NOT COME TO ABOLISH the Law. Unless you're hell-bent on forcing words into His mouth, I don't see why or how His statement should be confusing you even until now. If you need to buy more time for your pious deflections, I won't be surprised to read you repeat the same pitiful poetry as you did in your recent reply. You're free to duck all you want - chaps like you like to make illiterate noise, so no surpises there.

chukwudi44:
people should stop using the fact tnat Abraham paid tithe to melchizedek to justify this heresy,besides the fact hat Abraham's tithe to melchizedek wwas voluntary ,it is also on record hat cain,Abel,noahAbraham e.t.c offered burnt offerings long beore the law was Given by moses.

What is wrong with anyone choosing to tithe voluntarily following Abraham's example as highlighted in your quote? It seems as though the whole argument of anti-tithers is to stop everyone from tithing altogether. If there are abuses, why not focus on them? Why do you make 'tithes' a heresy, and how have anti-tithers produced increased giving in the Body of Christ?

olabowale:
viaro, if you believe answering islam.com, then i ask anyone to show me where any word, a sentence, a chapter in the Quran is written, other than the very only way it is written, be it in hafs, walsh, uthmanic style of writing. if none of you can point out a single one, then know that you have all lied; answering islam, nezan, viaro, etc!

olabowale, you may have noticed I'm not in the mood of entertaining silly rants from posters like you. I don't have to go to any website to know that there are many muslims who lie to themselves and to everyone; so what the crap are you all about? You jumped into a thread where nobody was counting beads or spreading mats to knock their heads brainless for facing the East while forgetting that Islam is as divided as you are trying to showcase for Christianity. If Nezan never pointed me to any website on what I asked him, are you going to deny the divisions between Muslims in their many sects?

Just crawl back to your kettle and brainless head-knocking exercise with a prospect of 72 virgins. You have a lot to occupy you when you get "there; so don't ever, ever seek to engage me with such illiterate megaphonic self-serving pantomimes.

_{>>viaro hisses<<}

chukwudi44:
Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

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


madam Pilgrim 1

Do u mind telling me what it means to[b] fulfi[/b]l a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded

I left a postscript: "An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek". Since you can't give that, you can only get the same treatment as you invite - so don't come back and complain.

However, whatever you may derive from 'answering a question with a question', I asked you to reconcile your statement with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17. You confirmed my presupposition that you'd try to duck that question and come back grumbling with your usual excuses. Here is a reminder of the contrast:

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

Could anything be simpler said? Whatever you may argue, it does not follow that He 'abolished' the Law by 'fulfilling' it - or you would have to find a cleverly dishonest way to twist what Jesus said. Your assertion is the direct opposite of what Jesus stated in that verse - please reconcile them, or just swallow your pride and zip up.

_{(I almost forgot you're honestly an expert at 'confirming' silly tales without engaging your thinking faculty).}

ogajim:
You remind me of the old song "sensa una donna"

Viaro, I am sorry if you thought some of my posts to be harsh or personal attacks at your person as that has never been neither will it ever be my focus, I like to debate issues not personalities as only our Lord Jesus Christ is blameless.

Nevermind. I didn't want to see us descend to such unhealthy exercises, which was why I raised a note thereto from the onset. My apologies for sounding harsh - yes, I admit some of mine were not sweet. I would rather say your turn of attitude is gentlemanly - thank you.

The point I tried to make was that Genesis comes before Hebrew, old Testament comes before the new Testament, in Genesis we learned how Abram became Abraham and you don't need a law degree to get what I was trying to say there.

I get all that; and after all is said, you could have seen that your assertion about 'Abraham didn't pay any tithes' was wrong in light of Hebrews 7. Whether one came before the other does not negate the fact that Abraham (or Abram) gave tithes to Melchizedek.

My position is clear: People can give what % they feel to their "Church" but there is no commandment to do so, we are commanded to care for Widows, Orphans, strangers in our "gates", etc based on how we are directed by the Holy Spirit and those who are unable to face no condemnation.

That's cool; and I don't have any worries about that.

My position remains that the only Christian condition fulfilled by worshiping in a "Church" is Fellowship because "Iron sharpeneth Iron", if you have other conditions, please feel free to share or "teach"

I'm not given to the idea of setting "conditions" for anybody - that has been my position all along. For that same reason, I repeatedly said to Zikkyy that I could care less what anyone wanted to argue, whether pro-this or anti-that. For one thing, I deeply disapprove of the unnecessary divide in the Body of Christ that many people encourage on this subject.

Why do we tithe and yet "worship" on a Sunday?

I don't know.

Aren't we supposed to keep the whole Law instead of just one?

Technically, I believe we are doing so if we can understand how to do so. The Bible tells us that love is the fulfilling of the Law (Rom. 13:8 & 10), and that is why I have no problems with the intrinsic nature of the Law in speaking to the Christian today. Yet, I also recognize that we're not called to be clones of Judaism while living in the new covenant; which makes these arguments quite unnecessary in the first place.

Did Jesus pay our debt on the cross so we can continue the "tithe" law?

For me, I have never argued at any place that Gentiles were given any "law" to tithe (I remember stating that again on Nairaland). So, to argue about whether to "continue" any 'law' does not arise in the first place. Abraham was not given any law to tithe; and I've also said that bending the subject of tithing to the Law is a misconstruct of unsound reasoning. People can tithe, not because they are seeking to "continue" any 'law tithe' - and if you have no problems with anyone tithing, the argument does not arise in the first instance.

That said, I know that what most people deplore is the abuse that have attended tithes in many places. Much as we frown on such abuses, it does not make sense to lump every tither with all abusers and abuses so that we can condemn everyone at the same time. That is just wrong and unspiritual. Not many anti-tithers are aware that there are a lot of Godly ministers and churches that tithe where you won't find such abuses at all - should we then condemn everyone altogether for speaking about tithing? We should rather learn to balance all things in a Godly manner and discourage unnecessary divides.

If one makes his/her living in that scam, is that not sinful?

Certainly, a scam is a scam - and there are all sorts of scams going on in many places. But then what? Is it not equally sinful to condemn just about anybody because we don't like to hear the mention of the word 'tithe'?

Anyways, I apologise again for the banters; and at the same time, I rejoice that we can now calm down and talk as adults. I trust we shall see more of this trend; but if not, I'd rather not re-enter unhealthy exchange with anyone over this topic.

It is well with you.

ogajim:
"viaro", the results are in and overwhelmingly in favor of you seeking help even if we have to pony up a "percentage" of our income to fund that project.

I didn't realise my entry into this thread was like facing a gang panel. Otherwise, what do you mean by that crap up there? I was of the opinion that we could discuss without the mob sentimentality. . but hardly surprising as it's just about the same thing I've witnessed elsewhere.

Fraulein is German for "young lady" and I thought you knew it all, Ich bin nicht Deutsch, aber ich kann ein wenig sprechen

Lol, I knew that; and didn't you realise what 'Donna' meant? Hint: seek an Italian translation, and you'll get the clue. I was only returning your courtesies, bobs. Yes, I understand the highlighted in blue (if my German is not rustic, roughly translated it reads: "I'm not German, but I can speak a little" - same as for me).

I couldn't care less what a frustrated person calls me, I might have been called more by underlinings anyway so you are welcome to try as hard as you can, nothing so quickly kills a person as the publicity he/she gives him/her self, many folks come on here and sound like they've got splendid capabilities but when push comes to shove, they display their true colors, like a rotten egg which shines outside and stinks inside.

Stop sobbing that badly. Did you think for a moment I cared any scoobies about what anyone called me just because we're discussing tithes? How many times did I first sound a note of warning that I would not entertain attitudes of insolence from you guys? No, you only see red lights flashing when your putrid caterwauls are returned as much as you offered - you never take a moment to consider the way you address people.

Even up to this very moment, I've always held out that I would oblige a discussion free from insults and name-calling. We may all disagree here and there and go off on a good laugh and a pleasant note. Others have demonstrated such good rapport - Zikkyy and debosky are good fellows that come readily to mind and worthy of emulation. But ever since you guys came forward to engage me on this subject, it has been insolence all the way with almost zero realisation of what you guys were doing. So again: if you want a discussion, I'd be glad to oblige. If you choose otherwise, then kindly save us the boring adverts you're putting up lately.

I don't see any answers to the questions so when all else fails, retort to the known, attack with no merit. I've seen your kind in the old neighborhood

You've been hanging out with the hood too long for your own good. You just captured the very thing you and your friends displayed repeatedly: accusations take center stage when reasoning departs your camp. Just think about it: did I never at any time ask that such insolents be kept far from outr discussions (never mind repeatedly doing so)? No, you guys cannot endure to hold sanity where it's needed most - but I just thought to school you up a bit (if for nothing else, so those kids under your supervision don't come off as a threat to themselves in the wider context of society).

Let me gee you a confession: I wanted to just leave this thread and and NL and let you guys have your day: I didn't plan to stay long. But having initially stated clearly that any insolence from anti-tithers would not be entertained, I thought to help you guys see that I was serious about what I said. There was just no reason for anti-tithers to launch a mob attack on other believers simply because of any disagreemements about tithes. What then has been the profit of the banter? None. So, where do we go from here - continue to trade these miserly droppings because we want to win an argumement and shout pro-tithers to oblivion? What's the spiritual benefit in that type of behaviour?

When you worry about what you read from others, take a moment and reflect on how your own style of discussing issues have called for such reactions in like manner.

Hebrews must have come before Genesis using your logic this woman don begin dey sound like  government pickin sef! 

What is the logic of your unintelligent carping about 'Abraham didn't pay any tithes' when you read the direct opposite in Hebrews? Your logic again - to argue against those verses just so you can win your ecclesiatical nonsense?

Consistent inconsistency doesn't make you a great debater QED,

I noticed your consistent inconsistencies all along; so nothing new there.

I laid out questions that you skipped conveniently and all I can say is why bother with you? Spend some time with kids if you don't have any and you might learn something new.

No, I clearly stated that deviations would be ignored - did you fly over that one? Go back to post #491 and read it yourself: "Distractions or deviations that do not directly answer that question shall be ignored" - and since you didn't observe that statement, I only followed through with it. If you like to keep flying over simple statements and questions to quickly introduce your artfully pious duplicity, what is my worry about your latest complaints?

A discussion - yes. Your shadow boxing peppered with poorly crafted poetic insolence - no, nada, zilch. If you must insist that personal attacks are the better alternatives for you and your lot, you're welcome to be my guest.

Omenuko:
So in effect, you are wrong. . . .praying to Mary and the saints is a form of veneration and it is not worship. Catholics do not worship the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Omenuko, thank you for trying to share some insights on my enquiry. You sound like a Catholic (I may be wrong); but I may not be convinced about the bold up there. Anyhow, no fusses. . and my appreciation for your calm attitude to discuss this subject.

_______________________

Pastor AIO:
Sorry, I was writing in reference to Olabowale's post.

My apologies: I didn't realise.

KunleOshob:
There is this popular saying that says you shouldn't argue with a mad man woman, people would not be able to tell the difference Some people are so twisted and corrupted in mind that it makes my skin crawl the very idea they describe themselves as christian. As such i would restrain myself from dialoguing arguing with such vermins.

Good boy - that up there is self-confessed and self-descriptive.

ogajim:
This Viaro lady omase ooooooooo

Hi mrs Donna. Let's see what you have said beyond the GID malady that has stuck to you.

Genesis 17: 5Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

I am not a fan of Ecclesiastical nonsense and would appreciate some honesty from those who call themselves Christians.

Although I'm not in the same GID nonsense as you find yourself, I would say that Hebrews 7:4 & 6 shows honestly that ABRAHAM gave tithes to Melchizedek. The simple thing to do is open your Bible and read it. As long as you're honest enough to admit that Hebrews 7 calls the same person by the name 'ABRAHAM', what is your problem in sorting that simple issue out for yourself? These deviations you guys whip up are too shameful to rise to your level.

You categorically asserted that "Abraham didn't pay any tithe" - but Hebrews 7:4 & 6 show the fallacy of that statement. To argue otherwise would mean you're either being ignorant, or too confused as to see that 'Abraham' and 'Abram' are the very same person - not two different people! To come up with that drivel about "Abraham didn't pay tithe" is cacophonic nonsense indeed - unless you can find a way (a dishonestly clever way) to deny that it is "ABRAHAM" that we read of in Hebrews 7:4 & 6. If you're still confusing your onions somewhere, then let Gen. 17:5 that you quoted help you see that both names of 'Abraham' and 'Abram' are referring to the same person! So the ecclesiatical nonsense of 'Abraham didn't pay any tithes' is as nonsensical as the national anthem of anti-tithers for all they are worth.

You are unable to show where MONEY was "commanded" "decreed" to be used for tithes

That was not my question, so please don't play fast and loose with me. I asked you to show me where ANYONE was penalised for using money as tithes - you failed to oblige a single verse for that; only to come up with the ecclesiatical nonsense of 'Abraham didn't pay any tithes'. Please stick to the single question I've been asking you and don't resort to these beggarly games of fast switching like a gambler's perfected art.

You are unable to show where non land or livestock owners were commanded to tithe

Same as above.

You are unable to show where Christians were commanded to pay weekly/bi-weekly/monthly tithes

Same as above.

You are unable to show where God or his son Jesus commanded us to be "ditto heads" to "MOGs"

Same as above - derailing the questions where you had no answers to the simple question that brought us here. I won't like to shame my anti-tithing friend, as I already laid a bet to him that you would ignore that question categorically because you had no answers. I can forgive the fact that it was a slip you made; but to be adamant and play fast and loose like this is disgraceful.

You are unable to answer the simple question of the origin of our current tax &banking system

Er, are you seriously in need of that help you cried out for?
Where did my question to you revolve round "origins"? Clever mrs Donna, please stop these antics - you may try a bit more to go back to the simple question I asked you:
'who penalised anyone for using money as tithes? Who? Where? When?'
That was the question, my guy. This deviation of 'origin' of a tax and banking system are a nice try, but they don't wash here. Sorry.

I could go on but I need to see a response to this first, intellectual dishonesty should be reserved to a zombie arena not a gathering of the learned.

Nice advice - how about you throw your unintellectual dishonesty behind you first before seeking to gather with the learned, huh? What nonsense again was all that about Abraham didn't pay any tithes and the rest of the saga you've been noising all along? If you guys are going to keep playing these piously dubious games, the better thing to do is say so - anyone seeking to discuss with you should then know what you're all about.

Those of us who have the chutzpah to disagree with ditto heads should not be insulted just because pro tithers are unable to come up with superior argument to buttress their point.

The bold word there should have been 'schmuck', sorry. You're a very sorry comedian - after how many times I held out that we can discuss amicably, you guys went on the rampage like rabid deaf and mute mooncalves trading insults incessantly. Discussing issues sanely was beyond your level, only to come back with that cacophony up there. Like I said, you can have it any ways you choose: either we talk as respectable adults and agree to differ with good sense of humour; or otherwise invite me to return as much as you give (Proverbs 26:5).

However, I am willing to discuss, even where we disagree. You don't have to start being insolent only to come back with that lullaby of a weakling complaining about insults. Let's keep all that aside, talk as grown-ups, deliver good dialogue and discourage the anti-this and pro-that divides in the Body of Christ. If you would rather enjoy being insolent, no problem: I just might oblige you far more than you think you can handle.

I shudder at the rigmarole and inability to answer simple question but instead turn it into a crap shoot, there is nothing infallibly prophetic about pessimistic or cynical conjectures.

Huh??  Look at this chap! To be honest with you, who has fitted that descriptive more than you for failing to answer the simple question about who ever penalised anybody for using money as tithes? You didn't finish with that before switching onto the ecclesiatical nonsense of confusing Abraham over Abram! Not satisfied with that, you tried to talk things to switch to "origins" of a tax system! Do you suffer from such short memories because you fancy playing games with such quips?   Well done, but whatever you're advertising won't sell. You haven't shown your ability to answer a simple question, and yet you have the cleverness of a schmuck to complain about anyone else on the same thing that paints you all over? Hahaha. . !! M-e-n! You're a good, good laff!

what is the meaning of "to redeem"? you could "redeem" your old computer for cash if there is anyone interested in antiques

Bobs, stop playing games - these ecclesiatical nonsense you're dribbling with is not helping you any better than where you're at.

I happen to hate shooting indiscriminately because as a professional, I should be better than that and shoot with precision.

Hahaha!!
Please, don't let 'em kids under your tutelage suffer further from these pitiful poetry of yours. What was all that garboil about - after failing to answer a simple question? 'Professional' M-e-n! I wonder at your tales (Abraham and Abram is a classic). Anyhow, just chill. . if you'd rather have it otherwise, you're welcome to be my guest.

_{'Professional' . . HA!!}

KunleOshob:
As usual you resort to semantics and pick pick at straws in other people's post whilst pursuing your larger agenda to distort scriptural facts.

This complaining is below you. I warned you early enough - if you would rather not discuss but be small minded with your repeated crap, save your breath so you don't have to come back with these childish rants.

It is quite evident that the tithes that was temporarily converted to money for ease of transport in deut 14:22-29 was give in monetary form as the tither was still required to use the money to buy produce he was NOT allowed to tithe the money.

Even at your very best, you're none the clever. I'm still asking you directly: what is the difference between these two statements:

(a) "Then shalt thou turn it into money" - verse 25
(b) "people could convert their tithes into money"

Incase you haven't noticed, the (a) is what the Bible states; while the (b) was my initial statement. But since you're too daft to read simple statements, you forced yourself to drive off on a tangent and still have not been able to show me the difference between both statements. The only thing I've seen you dancing around is the admission of what you first denied - is that my worry?

When i say you are trying to be clever by half now you would start taking offence but is that not what you are doing now

If the clever by half is the only achievement on your CV, I can appreciate that. Now please show me what difference there was between what I stated and what you read in the Bible. Since you haven't been able to show that, are you any clever beyond that point? This was why I wondered if you were capable of holding a discussion - but you only confirmed my supposition about the way you discuss issues.

The fact remains crystal clear from that passage that money was NEVER used to pay tithes it was only converted to money for ease of transport. And for the benefit of others and to expose your treachery i would post what God instructed the money to be used for. This is the verse most "pastors" would like to see deleted from the bible, people like pilgrim.1 would rather quote it out of context.

Stop making these illiterate rants - they're below you. Anyone with good sense would see what I stated and what the verses also stated. You're just a laughing spot to be denying and affirming my position from onset. Did the highlight in that quote above differ from what I initially stated? If this is the best shot you can give for your half wit, I can hardly be surprised.

Deuteronomy 14: 24 “Now when the Lord your God blesses you with a good harvest, the place of worship he chooses for his name to be honored might be too far for you to bring the tithe. 25 If so, you may sell the tithe portion of your crops and herds, put the money in a pouch, and go to the place the Lord your God has chosen. 26 When you arrive, you may use the money to buy any kind of food you want—cattle, sheep, goats, wine, or other alcoholic drink. Then feast there in the presence of the Lord your God and celebrate with your household.

Deuteronomy 14:25 in various translations:

[list]25 then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thy hand, and shalt go unto the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose [ASV]

25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses [ESV]

25 then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thy hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose [JPS]

25 then thou hast given [it] in money, and hast bound up the money in thy hand, and gone unto the place on which Jehovah thy God doth fix [YLT][/list]

Compare that verse in those translations with what I stated in post #491:

viaro:
At least we know of the same Law that shows that people could convert their tithes into money (Deuteronomy 14:22-27) - and for all that, nobody was 'penalised for using money as tithes' in that passage. Your Leviticus 27:28-31 does not teach what you asserted. If you insist it does, then please show where Deuteronomy 14:22-27 penalises anybody for turning their tithes into money! Thank you in advance.

What then is the difference between what I stated in post #491 and what is stated in Deuteronomy 14:25?!? Unless you guys are seriously in need of sorting out your maladies, I don't see how simple statements are causing you so much confusion.

    (a)  the Bible:  -  turn it into money
    (b)  my post:   -  convert their tithes into money
    (c)   my post:   -  turning the tithes into money

What is the difference between (a), (b) and (c)?

ogajim:
Who the hell is mrs. Donna

And who did you refer to as Fraulein? Did the 'Donna' thing touch you that badly that you had to react? You really do need help - get it fast.

It is near impossible to quicise some folks especially if they suffer from keyboard incontinence

Just check Wikipedia for your GID malady - (g[/b]ender [b]i[/b]dentity [b]d[/b]isorder) - it may help educate you just a bit more.

I guess also that [b]our "Jerusalem" or central place of worship these days is the "church's" bank accounts or the MOG's bank account.

That may be yours - as self-confessed. When you're done belly-dancing, let's see you return to sanity. If you can't afford to do so, I might help you on your GID malady as many times as you require.

Nezan:
@viaro; Just click on this:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

Cool. My deep appreciation.

By the way, Nezan: could I contact you concerning this:

Nezan:
I would have chosen to neglect this thread but for olabowales's post. I will want him to know that islam as it is today, has a koran that has so many editions, even in the arabic texts. The various contradictions in the koran I was pointing to him in the thread on islam section (which his brothers edited his posts as well as mine to hide his ignorance) makes koranic claims to divine revelation suspect.

Since my knowledge is quite small on such issues, it would be great if there's a way I could contact you to share more with me privately on the highlight. Is that possible? Thanks.

Pastor AIO:
you seem to be reading protestant where I wrote Church of England.  There are many protestants churches that will never join the Roman Catholics, not just because of ideology but also the history between them.  For instance I think it will truly be a miracle if the Lutherans ever rejoined the Catholics church.

Well, maybe my mistake. . and I apologise. Again, please forgive my tad ignorance on these issues. My amazements are only borne out of experiences I've had, especially with people close to me, where differences are so rife that buddies could go separate ways geographically. I just don't get it.

However, I don't think I was reading protestant for Church of England, though. The one thing that stands out is that there are both theological and doctrinal differences between and within these denominations. That is not to say that there are no similarities or semblances. In some instances, it seems to me that nothing siginificant could be pointed at as divergent; while in some other instances, the differences are quite pronounced. I think this point was captured quite well in your post #10. Thank you again.

Thank you, Nezan. It seems people like olabowale are too eager to point fingers where they should be taking care of the division in their own quarters.

KunleOshob:
When i state the obvious that some people deliberately mis-quote scriptures to confuse issues and promote unscriptural practises they resort to insults and abuse just becos we are equipped enough to query her majesty's heresies.

Perhaps you're learning the ABCs of good communication, so what is your complaining about? I already asked that if you can't afford to discuss until you bring your mud slinging to the fore, just ignore my posts - it is not a law that you must slave yourself over viaro's comments on the subject.

It is quite clear from the deuteronomy 14:22-29 that money was not used as tithes.

Please explain this: "Then shalt thou turn it into money" - verse 25.

How does that differ from what I said as you quoted from my statement:
'At least we know of the same Law that shows that people could convert their tithes into money (Deuteronomy 14:22-27)'

What is the difference between these two statements:

(a) "Then shalt thou turn it into money" - verse 25
(b) "people could convert their tithes into money"

I hope you can at least read those simple statements, regardless whatever insults you bring to the table as the highlight of your posts? The funny thing is that you first deny a fact, then come back acquiescing to the same thing you deny, as below:

God only approved it to be temporarily converted to money for ease of transport and their were clear instructions that it be re-converted back to food products[ including wine and other alcoholic drinks] before it is used as tithes. Infact this passage provides the strongest evidence that money was not to be used as tithes as if it was meant to be God would never have asked the tither to re-convert the money to produce before tithing it. He would simply have asked the tither to tithe the money instead. Passages like this is what makes it clear to me that some people deliberately and glaringly quote scriptures out of context to pursue their personal agendas as it is glaring that the scripture is against the use of money as tithes yet someone is trying to twist it to justify monetary tithes

After all your complaints, your arguments are hanging in the air. Scroll up and see what I said when quoting Deuteronomy 14, and then mirror my statement against your denial. You seem to just react because you can't resist reacting to anything I post. But when you react, you just leave too wide a gap to connect your piece in a sane line.

Again, I ask: what is the difference between these two statements:

(a) "Then shalt thou turn it into money" - verse 25
(b) "people could convert their tithes into money"

Please show me the difference between those statements? You earlier stated that "money was not used as tithes" and then come back to agree that "it is used as tithes" - please see the highlighted in your quotes. You should not be wasting space denying and agreeing to the same thing in the same breath.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=82886.msg4777535#msg4777535 date=1256188779]i cannot name anybody that fits these prophecies the same way the jews never believe jesus fits these prophecies as well[/quote]Well, does it not make the point already? If you cannot name anybody that fit those prophecies, then perhaps your inference of other possibilities may not be taken seriously - for now, at least.

However, I don't think your assertion in bold can be left unqualified. There are indeed many Jews that believe Jesus fits those prophecies - for they would not believe Him to be the Messiah if they ignored those prophecies in the first place. True, it is not all the Jews that believe in Jesus; but even so, it cannot be said that "the Jews" never believed Jesus fitted those prophecies.

Anglo-Catholics also employ the Hail Mary in devotional practice. Traditional Anglo-Catholics use the prayer in much the same way as the Roman Catholics, including use of the Rosary and the recitation of the Angelus. Many Anglican churches contain statues of the Virgin Mary, and the faithful use devotional prayers including the Hail Mary. However there might be some variations in local usage, reflecting the differing theological leanings of the two bodies.

Thanks pastor AIO. I understand that there are still differences in theology between Catholic and Anglican churches. Some sources say that they are doctrinally the same; othe sources see differences in their doctrine. I should commend your effort to share those sources with me (and other readers) - they all help me to better understand what I hitherto had not.

ogajim:
Viaro!

It would be nice to get your explanations to the Scriptures below:

I appreciate your turn of courtesy - nevermind you still are confused about genders. A discussion is welcome anyday, and I shall oblige you one.

Let us keep your earlier assertion in mind so as to avoid muddying the waters and losing the gist of my question to you earlier.

(a) you stated earlier:
'when TITHE was required, money was not to be used or if you follow Mosaic law, you were actually penalized for using money'

(b) my question:
'who penalised anyone for using money as tithes? Who? Where? When?'

The basic question is that someone was 'penalised for using money as tithe' - and that is the question I seek you to answer.

Now that you insist on quoting Leviticus 27:28-31, let us see if they answer that basic question. Distractions or deviations that do not directly answer that question shall be ignored.

Leviticus 27:28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

That does not teach that anyone was penalised for using money as tithes.
Next verse. . .

29None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

Does not answer the question either.
Next verse. . .

30And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD.

Still does not answer the question.
Next. . .

31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

Does not teach that someone was 'penalised for using money as tithes' either. The verse states that if someone was to redeem anything of their tithes, they were to add a fifth thereof; it does not teach your assumption that the penalty was because someone used money as tithes.

So, dear mrs Donna, can you point out where anyone was penalised for using money as tithes? At least we know of the same Law that shows that people could convert their tithes into money (Deuteronomy 14:22-27) - and for all that, nobody was 'penalised for using money as tithes' in that passage. Your Leviticus 27:28-31 does not teach what you asserted. If you insist it does, then please show where Deuteronomy 14:22-27 penalises anybody for turning their tithes into money! Thank you in advance.


Moving on now. .

Another question you and Tonye forgot to answer was why there was no mention of craftsmen and other working folks even farm hands paying tithes in those days, as I mentioned in previous posts, Abraham didn't pay any tithe, Abram did. Abram paid this tithe from the spoils of war before he had a covenant with God so the pro-tithers do need to get their story straight.  Genesis 14:11-24 (King James Version)

11And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. || 2 Peter 2:7-8 (King James Version)

7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds ||You know the rest of the story I am sure.

It is more rewarding for me to teach my kids Bible stories that engage in endless semantical gymnastics with folks who confuse issues. I don't have a background in human psychiatry but one might not need that on NL to identify with those who think some folks need help.

Yes Donna, you actually need help, or those children are in serious trouble when they grow up to face the larger society beyond your small room where you subject them to such harrowing tutelage. But even then, I wonder if you also teach 'em kids that Abraham and Abram are two different individuals? Are you forgetting that Hebrews 7:4 & 6 clearly said that ABRAHAM gave Melchizedek tithes? Where did you get your idea that "Abraham didn't pay any tithe"?!? No worries, you just displayed your serious need for help - get it fast!

I will keep you in my prayers Fraulein!  

Ah, Donna, you've always been in mine, trust me.

TV01:
Evening @viaro, I thought you were new here? How would you be aware of the fact - if indeed it is a fact - that I or anyone else is "fond" of Pilgrim.1? who by the way hasn't posted since early July, has she?

Sweet dreams 

TV

Hi TV01. Yes, I'm new here; and my apologies on discovering that you're actually fond of Pilgrim.1. I didn't know that as a 'fact' (whatever you meant by "if indeed" it is a fact). But I used that term ('fond of') in a sort of tongue-in-cheek manner in my reply to KunleOshob - seeing that anytime 'viaro' says anything, I'm to be mistaken by anti-tithers for Pilgrim.1, in just the same way that Tonye-t has been referred to as 'viaro'. So again, if I crossed some shores that were forbidden in your realm of being fond of Pilgrim.1, I certainly didn't mean to cause any discomfort. Enjoy your connections - no hassles mate.

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=340956.msg4776121#msg4776121 date=1256159126]Most do not elevate Mary to the same extent as the Catholic rite.[/quote]Okay, I'll note that and do some more search on the matter.

lots of other major differences as well though the basics are similar.

I thought so as well.

chukwudi44:
Roman catholics,Eastern orthodox ,oriental orthodox,anglican and indeed all apostolic churches practise the veneration of saints of which Mary is one

That's not the same as praying to Mary, is it?

Please pardon my enquiries, as I'm neither Catholic nor Anglican. I happen to have friends that deeply disagree over the matter of praying to Mary, particularly the rite of "worshipping" Mary. The Anglican friend is so bitter about this that he actually left his area in Ireland just to avoid engaging his Catholic friend over this issue. That said, I don't know of any instance of Anglicans praying to Mary, though.

chukwudi44:
there is nothing like first fruit under christianity,

The term 'first fruit' is used in Christianity - albeit in a different sense. Read Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:23 and James 1:18. You cannot argue that there is "nothing like first fruit".

the bible clearly tells us that jesus christ abolished the mosaic law on the cross of calvarly

Okay. I would like to know how that can be reconciled with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (from the ESV).

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

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

An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek; and that would be greatly appreciated.