₦airaland Forum

potentpraise: So if they are property and they are goods, including the women, that means 10% of their total number could have been given to Melchisedec to help him carry the tithes that was given to him to wherever he was going and also to help him with some errands.

.....and you told me we can assume Melchizedek to be an angel of God! the men, women & slaves will be running errands in heaven abi?

Goshen360: The last time I checked, Lot was still walking in the next chapter had it being he was also tithed inclusive the 10%.

Bros even if Lot was still walking, what about his hands? maybe his hands were tithed na

potentpraise: Melchisedec has verse 3 said does not have relatives. The question on where he came from can not be ascertain by man, but God.

Thanks for the response. what about the part that has to do with Melchizedek not having end of life, can i conclude that Melchizedek is still somewhere in the middle east?

Since we cannot ascertain where Melchizedek came from, it therefore mean we cannot be sure if Melchizedek had relatives. So therefore, we cannot also ascertain that the order of Melchizedek is related to Jesus remember you said this was one of the justification for claiming the order of Melchizedek is related to Jesus, so we are not sure anymore

Goshen360: I know you will run in the end!

Na her trademark be dat. No be today.

.

Goshen360: Formula to pay my tithe ke? So God God don start dey give formula? The example I gave you about 12. Isn't 12 a number. Okay, let's take another one. 30 days a month. So 30 taken as number. 10% of 30 is 3 BUT 'tenth' or 'tenth part of 30 is 10 or tenth day. NO?

There is no way the man will understand what you are getting at. you better help him.

potentpraise: and verse 3: says "3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

Verse one said Priest of the most high God and verse 3 said just as Mechisedec had no father, mother, children nor have end of life but was made like the Son of God, who is the son of God, My bible tells me is Jesus

Good. Now that you are teaching, can i conclude that Mechizedek does not have father, mother (i.e. he fell from heaven or he was made from dust just like Adam) and since you said that Melchizedek does not have end of life, can i conclude he is still around (somewhere in the middle east)? i hope you know that's the message you are passing across. Your response will be very much appreciated sir.

potentpraise: Its interesting to think i am scared at this point after my reference. If there is any concern at all, it is the fact that you and Goshen360 are just being entertained and not really interested in learning, but argue for the fun of it. Await my response and i will answer

i am waiting

potentpraise: ANS
It will make good sense to reference your conclusion to the bible because all you just state is opinion. You will need to go read exodus where the bible tells the rich to give to the poor. And if you don't understand that tenth and tithes is the same then you should get a dictionary.

Now you are afraid to engage. You want me to go read exodus and dictionary! this was your post to Goshen:

potentpraise: I have quietly monitored your advocacy for abolition of tithes in New Testament. But I think you are wrong. While I understand that you might be making a grave unconscious mistake, I think you should have ask before reaching that conclusion, at least ask people who are advance in this profession.

You came in here brimming with confidence, i was thinking i will be discussing with somebody quite knowledgeable. You are disappointing me walahi!

potentpraise: ANS
If you are arguing this after the illustration in Hebrew 7, then it means you have selective memory or you do selective reading that leads to selective comprehension

You know it would have been easy for you to refer Goshen to the many illustrations in the bible regarding the definition of tithe & tenth, but feeling confident you decided to open a dictionary. so i want you to adopt the same approach here; lets see some display of confidence and tell us how the order of Melchizedek is related to Jesus if you understand what you are talking about and you want viewers to learn from you, kindly answer the question! Don't know why you are scared.

potentpraise: and the order of Melchisedec is related to Jesus..

Don't talk about things you don't understand. How exactly is the order of Melchizedec related to Jesus. i am very sure you don't have a clue.

potentpraise: So if its reference to Melchisedec and he also collected tithes, the tithes is not abolished.

The concept of giving tenth cannot be abolished and do you know why? i will tell you; every giving (whether giving to pastor, or giving to beggars or giving to your next door neighbor or even your regular offering in church is a tenth part of something irrespective of the name you call it). What was abolished is the tithe instituted by God himself. i.e. the giving of tenth of agricultural produce to the Levites. Every other tithing practice is man made (including giving of tenth of personal income to church or pastor).

Goshen360's initial post (below) is valid.

Goshen360: That's why God NEVER demanded tithe ANYMORE in the first place from NT believers.

Ubenedictus: i dont need to have another alternative, but anything short of perfect will make ur bible a fluke!

...and what makes the bible perfect? maybe i should rephrase; what is your idea of perfection?

Ubenedictus: so u simply accept their scientific method which for all we know was prone to all sorts of mistakes. Dat means ur nt is a fluke.

How do you know it was subject to all sorts of mistakes? Do you have alternative approach to compiling the bible? Maybe you have info am not aware of. Abeg if you have reason why I should not be using the bible, tell me.

italo: when they tell you that the whole process was guided by the Holy Spirit, they sudden become liars?!

shuo!

how did you arrive at such conclusion? did i say anybody lied? my brother, this is false accusation o!

Ubenedictus: u mean d scientific appoach used by d bishops cannot be wrong abi?

No o! it means the scientific approach used by the bishop is acceptable in the absence of information that shows otherwise.

Ubenedictus: Oh and dont forget many books were in use that didnt enter d canon.

We know.

italo: So you see? As a Christian, you cannot afford to sit on the fence.

Did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly?

You should know. But if you don't know the answer to this fundamental Christian question, you have no business trying to even discuss whether the Catholic Church is fallible or infallible.

Asking if Peter taught 'fallibly' or 'infallibly' is like asking if Flora Shaw (Lord Lugard's madam) got the spelling of Nigeria right, when she named the country Nigeria.

italo: I don't consider you 'anti-Catholic.' And I certainly didn't call you that. I was making reference to some of the other guys here who obviously are. I think more highly of you than you think, Zikkyy.

Thank you.

italo: You accepted what you THINK the apostles taught in the Bible...but if you believe they taught fallibly it means it is possible that they taught you error. And if they could teach error, it means ANY and/or EVERY part of the Bible could be UNTRUE. So in your thinking it is possible that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell and any or every other thing the apostles taught in the Bible could all be a big farce. Afterall, 'the were fallible.'

I accepted EVERYTHING the apostles taught in the Bible. if i was to assess the apostles teachings for errors, on what basis will that be done? i mean what benchmark will be used for this assessment? Do you have an alternative source for checking the validity of the apostle's teachings? For me, the apostles teachings cannot be accepted in parts. The alternative for me would be to reject EVERYTHING they taught and go back to worshiping sango, or become an atheist. We cannot say the same for Pope. I don't see how somebody that was no different from zikkyy or italo at some point in his life suddenly becomes infallible simply because he now occupies a certain position. This is what i think we should be looking at. I expect the Pope to teach from the scriptures and the teachings of the apostles then becomes the benchmark for assessing his teachings. What you are telling me is that the Pope can come with teachings previously unheard of and it will be accepted as truth. what if the Pope comes on air today and say true baptism can only be achieved by going to 3rd mainland bridge and jumping into the Lagos lagoon, would that be accepted as truth?

italo: To be honest, most of these anti-Catholics are also confused. They just won't admit it, so I admire your honesty.

I don't understand why you would call me anti-catholic.

italo: If you don't know whether Peter was teaching fallibly or infallibly, the same applies to Paul, Matthew, Luke, Mark and all the other writers of scripture.

I still don't see Peter teaching fallibly or infallibly has to do with the Pope being infallible.

italo: That means you don't know whether the Bible is the word of God or not. That means you don't know whether all that was taught in the Bible are true or not. You don't know whether God even exists or not.

I don't even 'know' what you are talking about here. in accepting 'all that was taught in the bible', 'fallibility' (of the apostles) was never a consideration for me.

italo: @ Zickky,
Its okay, you have a right to believe the Church is wrong or right...and of course, you have a right to remain eternally confused about issues pertaining to your salvation. But since you are talking about "infallibility" I will only ask you questions - one by one.

Peter wrote two books in the Bible and of course must have conducted many teachings to the Church which are not in those two small letters. Was he writing and teaching fallibly or infallibly?

To be honest, I don't know if Peter was 'teaching fallibly or infallibility'. The scriptures is silent on this.

@italo, please note that i am not saying the Catholic Church is wrong or right on any matter (i have done my best to avoid going into that. it is not in my nature to criticize churches). My focus is only on the matter of infallibility. I believe the Pope to be human and that it is very possible for him to teach wrong if he want to. Jesus did not say that Church leaders are on auto pilot and therefore cannot go beyond the programed instructions. They are not expected to teach wrong stuff if they continue to teach only what Christ commanded.

Enigma: ^^^ Let me let you in on a little secret; keep it under your hat and don't let anyone know!

For most of its early history the Roman Catholic Church itself did not believe in papal infallibility at least. Don't forget that papal infallibility is a key if not the main plank of the Roman Catholic doctrine of "infallibility".

Thank you bros. i have difficulty getting maself involved in discussions of this nature cos ma knowledge of church history is not so good and am too lazy to make any serious research.

italo: I don't understand you here.

Are you saying you trust the authenticity of the books of the Bible because they were in use by the early Christians...?

Or are you saying you DON'T trust the authenticity of the books of the Bible?

You seem to be confused here.

If acceptance is NOT because of the infallibility of the Church, then what is your acceptance based on?

No confusion at all. The Pope did not write his own version of rhapsody of realities or any of those pastoral books and claim it was the word of God. Just imagine a situation where the Pope comes up to altar one sunday morning and lay before the congregation some set of books previously un-heard of and say some were written by Paul, some by Peter and some by Jesus himself. He then instruct that the books should be accepted as the word of God, am sure italo will not believe the pope is serious. Infallibility was not the basis for accepting the books in the bible. validity is further reinforced by the fact that these books were already in use by the early Christians. Am sure the church adopted a scientific approach at the point of deciding the authors of these books, it was not done by divine revelation abi? or did the pope wake up one morning and say this one was written by Paul & this one was written by Peter with no basis for such decision? So if we decide to flow with the arrangement, it's probably because we see sense in the approach adopted not because the pope cannot be wrong.

italo: "Unnecessary complexities?!" What if your "simple practice" is against Gods teaching?

By keeping it simple, chances/probability of me going wrong is reduced. probability that you will go wrong is increased when you start adding practices not expressly stated (arrived at after making some complex deductions). You see the work you have to go through to prove that use of images is allowed.

italo: Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

Some say eating his "flesh" and "blood" merely means to believe in him.

Others say it is eating "bread" and drinking "wine" which are mere SYMBOLS of his body and blood.

The Catholic Church says it is receiving the ACTUAL body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist which only remains under the appearance of bread and wine after consecration by a Catholic priest during mass.

What is your "simple practce" about this?

....haba! i did not critic this one na!

italo: What you call "unnecessary complexity" was revealed to us by God.

No wahala. after all i no dey there to say its true or not true.

italo: 1Cor 3:15 says: "If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames."

Read the passage and tell me where one will be saved as one escaping through fire. Heaven?! There is no fire in heaven. Hell?! No one will be saved from hell. So if not Purgatory, where and how?

so tell me, did you accept Christ so you can make purgatory?

italo: Maybe you should try telling this to Jesus. Just look at what he said:

Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And this power didn't end with the apostles...Jesus said "MY CHURCH"...and his Church has not ended. He also said:

My brother, i don't see infallibility here o!

italo: Matt28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

"...TO THE VERY END OF THE AGE..."

Are the apostles still baptizing and teaching?

So who will he "be with" until the end?

Answer: their successors - the Church.

....and nothing relating to infallibility here as well. Christ said "teach them to obey everything i have commanded you". what happens when the pope decides to teach them what Christ did not command? is he still infallible?

italo: The only motivation for my saying all I'm saying is not for the eradication of confusion...but for your salvation and mine.

So you believe the concept of infallibility is for our salvation? lol my brother, the pope no just want too much argument and i have to admit that it worked sha. if not the church would have been smaller today.

italo: The Catholic Church says it cannot teach error because the Holy Spirit guides it to teach God's truth and prevents it from teaching error. So if the Catholic Church is wrong on even ONE teaching, it means that the above statement is a untrue.

YES. That's my position. The Holy Spirit will guide only if you allows it to. Everybody says they are being guided by the spirit, and we have all sort of practices from Catholic - Anglican - petecostals - 'cele' - JW; who do i believe.

italo: It means the Catholic Church could be wrong about any other issue, including: the canon of New Testament which you hold as scripture, its authenticity, authorship, source of inspiration of the books etc... And if all these can be called into question, then Christianity itself is questioned and we are all in danger of being doomed.

There is that possibility that the RCC could be wrong on other issue, that is not to say i don't agree with the church on a lot of issues. for e.g i am not likely to disagree with the church on practices that aligns with my interpretation of biblical texts or were practiced by the early church. Please be reminded that the NT texts was already in use by early Christians prior to compilation so no fear that the authenticity, authorship or source of inspiration of the books will be called into question. To be honest, what's the guarantee that some of these books were written by these authors? and what's the guarantee that some books were not left out? acceptance is not because the Church cannot make mistake.

italo: Also, talking about infallibility/fallibility...

The Protestant position against the infallibility of the Catholic Church is not tenable. Any Protestant who claims to be infallible is guilty of the very same thing he accuses the Catholic Church of. Any Protestant who claims to be fallible can never be sure of his/her position on any doctrinal matter so he/she cannot claim with certainty that the Catholic Church is wrong.

I agree

italo: So you can never be sure that you are practising God's true faith and doctrine... Don't you shudder at the implication of that?

No, i don't. i try to make my practice as simple as possible without introducing unnecessary complexities.

italo: If, for example, you disagree with the Church teaching on purgatory, saying purgatory doesn't exist. You cannot be both right. Only one party can be saying the truth.

I see this as one of those unnecessary complexities. what is my business with purgatory. My brother am interested in the final destination and not some imaginary bus-stop deduced from some ancient practices.

italo: When many submitted to the infallible teachings of Jesus, many disagreed. When many submitted to the infallible teachings of the apostles (the first priests and bishops), many disagreed. The New Testament is full of instances where the apostles were warning the children of God to resist false teachers and their doctrines which were already present at that time. So we are not perturbed by Protestantism of today.

For example: the same way some of his own disciples opposed and left him when they felt he hadn't provided "convincing justification" for his teaching that they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life...

I don't think we should compare Church leadership of today to Christ (or even the apostles). Christ was talking about himself so how is it possible he will be wrong?

Mftivi: just becos they dont agree with the word of God not me.

Its rare to see Christians disagree with the texts. disagreement is usually over human interpretations.

Mftivi: i see confused people here. pipl talking out of thier empty box,if u wana serve GOD become a fool hubmle urself,dont bring in human jagon follow his word point to point. and live according to d leading of the spirit.

following the word 'point to point' requires interpretation. what's the assurance that your interpretation is correct and how do you know they are not living according to the leading of the spirit?

Mftivi: God said the wisdom of men is foolishness. u think the scripture is what u interprete carnaly,so foget all diz jagon udrop here,u can only understand when the spirit rests on u. u sound sooo empty. dont mean to upset anyone just teling u how u look

......and you are of belief that you are the one the spirit rest on abi? the spirit is not resting on others just because they don't agree with you.

italo: No matter how literate, intelligent or educated one is, he/she can never be certain that his/her understand of Christ's doctrine is ablutely correct without alligning with the infallible teaching of the Church. Just look at the other side: millions of different and contradictory doctrines all claiming to be the true doctrine taught by ONE Holy Spirit...but there can only be ONE true doctrine... So how do you know you are right and every other person is wrong.

I think you should re-read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.

I do not claim to be infallible, neither do I claim that the protestants are infallible. I also do not believe that the RCC is infallible. And when we don't agree It's either;
The church is right and zikkyy is wrong or,
The church is wrong and zikkyy is right or,
We are both right or
We are wrong.

You want us to submit to the teachings of the church to ensure there is no confusion. What happens if the church is wrong?

italo: Even after the "protestant reformation" in the 16th century, it has continued to HOLD for billions of Catholics...and we have also been reading the Bible. Before then, the reformers made people believe that more independent access to the Bible would enlighten them about the "truth" and the Catholic Church said independent interpretation of the Bible outside of Church teaching would lead to Heresy and anarchy. Just look at Christendom today and tell me who was right. If the protestants were right, then how many "truths" do we have? How many doctrines and how many faiths?

I do not claim any right or wrong here. The fact that billions continues to submit to the 'infallible' teachings of the RCC does not mean others will not disagree. And where the church is unable to provide convincing justifications for some of its teachings, there will always be opposition.

italo: Then again, God's word wasn't passed down to us ONLY by Sacred Scripture. It is also passed down by Sacred Tradition. That is why St. Paul said "brothers, hold fast to the TRADITION we have handed to you, either by written letter (books of the Bible) or by WORD OF MOUTH." So the Church recognizes God's word in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Even the Bible, which you take as the final authority came from Church Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture were the Apostles or anyone else instructed to create or compile the Bible. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere is anyone told to regard the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine, so to say that something is wrong because its not in the Bible is unbiblical.

Like