₦airaland Forum

And just before I sign off, I will like to use this opportunity to wish my anti-xmas brother's and sister (ljawkid, truthislight & plappville) a very merry Xmas celebration. Wishing you a 'bombastic' Xmas . Please don't drink and drive, I very much want to read your posts in year 2013

ijawkid: Making it a custom to exchange gifts on a set aside day in imitation of a pagan festival is what is wrong and no early 1st century christian practiced such kind of giving..........

Almost everyone if not all who celebrates christmas exchange gifts because its the exact custom of the saturlania which it was taken from nÓt because its part of christian giving........that is my point........

I understand your point. But also understand that gift giving is not being done today because it is saturnalia custom to give. If I give extra on Christmas day (i give on other days) because I consider that day special & and the giving was done out of genuine love for the recipient, what's wrong with that?

The day I will join your camp is the day peeps begin to justify Xmas as a command from God. It is strictly a creation of man. What is important is to try and ensure our actions are acceptable to the Almighty.

ijawkid: Lol........must you celeb®ate the birth of Jesus??....na must??..........only pagans in the past had that drive in celebrating the birthdays of gods and peoples.........
............

It is not a must. And frankly my approach to it is to see treat it like any other national holiday. But do I partake in some of the activities? Yes, I exchange cards (even with Muslim friends & colleagues ), & gifts too. But to say it was wrong for my Catholic & pentecostal brothers to celebrate Christmas in a proper manner is something I don't agree with.

ijawkid: Paul receive gift on xmas daÝ??...ok sorry them never begin celebrate xmas that time..na saturnalia e been be.................the early christians received gifts everyday from the brethrens.......a particular day was never planned for. Exchange of gifts....it is the saturlania that brought about that...........

All I have done is show that the receipt or giving of gift is not a sin. You guys make look like it is a sin. The intent of the man giving or receiving a gift matters whether It's Xmas or any other day. Giving of gift on Xmas day is not what makes Xmas wrong.

ijawkid: ....celebrating the birth day of Jesus on dec 25th is a big time fraud.....

I told you to drop this date issue. So if its celebrated sometime mid year, it will not be a fraud abi? Is there any date one can celebrate the birth of Christ? A pagan feast free day? If you know of such kindly advice those that celebrate Xmas so they can reschedule the Xmas feast.

ijawkid: How was it celebrated??.......and was it commemorated??............won't you exchange gifts tomorrow??don't you have xmas trees hung around your house??.....

What's wrong with the exchange of gifts? Even apostle paul received gifts. What's wrong with the 'christmas tree'? Is it not a tree made by God? So one should not go near any plant and animal because pagans use them. You guys are making a mess of this anti Xmas argument.

plappville: ....See my last post for more about what the bible teaches on birthday.

They are not teachings on birthdays please. If thats your interpretation of those events, maybe you should stop reading. I guess it safer to let your pastor do the reading & interpretation.

plappville: If it was not wrong, the examples will be spread over scripture. There are only 2 birthday occasions recorded in the bible, One king HEROD, two king PHEROAH. BOTH ARE PAGANS.

These two evens were well penned as birthday, why is Christ own not? be informed that these events have similarities in that they're both marked by celebrations and executions, one was the death of Pharaoh's chief baker and the beheading of John the Baptist by Herod)(Genesis 40:18-22; 41:13); (Matthew 14:6-11; Mark 6:21-28).

What is the good example of birthday? which of the Rigteous figures can you point out celebrated yearly birthday apart from these two pagans? This is where the problem is.

I asked a question in some time back and your guys quietly avoided it, maybe you can answer if you have the courage.

"what if I decided to celebrate the birth of Christ by a dedicating a day once a year for it, a day I chose, and I spend the day giving praises. Do you consider my action a sin? If yes kindly state why"

Sister plappville, you are still on this matter. I can see alexleo is doing a good job here.

I think you should do away with this idea of "if it's not expressly stated in the bible, then it not right". You sound like a robot when you do that. It gives the impression you are just regurgitating other people views.

When Christ gave his commandment, he did not say this is exactly what you must do and these are the list of activities you must abstain from. We have a freedom to operate within the commandments as long as we don't act in a manner that does not align with them. Society evolves, so does activities. Jesus could not have instructed that we should not watch certain programs on television because there was no t.v at the Time. The scriptures covers event up to some years after the crucifixion, and will not expressly address behaviours or activities not vogue at the time. Man will always look at New ways of doing already established behaviors or activities or even new things to do, but we must be guided by the scriptures to ensure we don't go wrong.

2. You cannot say Christmas has pagan origin and therefore it is wrong, afterall the idea of sacrifice and worship performed by pagans has its root on Cain & Abel, but that does not make it right. Agreed that Christmas is now a global feast and people celebrate it for different reasons. People will rob or kidnap to raise fund for christmas celebration, to them Christmas is all about making merry. The beauty of it all is that God looks at the heart and not your actions.

Take alexleo's advice and focus on the fact that Christmas is not done right. You make more sense if you critic the manner in which some peeps celebrate Xmas. Also considers the possibility that these peeps might not be Christians.

My vote goes to Goshen

Enigma: ^^ Even in those days he was not a Trinitarian. His position was more the oneness position aka "Jesus only". *

In fact, I do not think he was ever truly a Trinitarian or ever understood the doctrine of The Holy Trinity; he certainly does not understand it presently.

So, it makes his transformation to his current position easier for me to understand.



*EDIT In fact, evidence for this my claim can be found in about his 3rd post on the thread: https://www.nairaland.com/872641/proof-jesus-christ-god-straight#10211449

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I have not really being following the discussions on trinity. Only read the head-lines and observed those for and against.

Interesting

Bidam: ..God's laws are spiritual.

...and you (Bidam) are carnal.

Bidam: The whole purpose of the Law is Love

..and did the law achieve it purpose?

As long as you continue to be guided by the mosaic law, you'll miss the opportunity to live according to the law of Christ. Maybe the mosaic law was meant for you, maybe you belong to the category of people that Paul listed in 1 Timothy 1:9-10

(KJV)
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

You said the purpose of the law is love, how can the law achieve it when it is just a subset of love? what happens if it is not complete and cannot address all that love stand for? Take the commandment "thou shall not kill" for example, the commandment says its a sin to kill, but it did not say you shall not not 'hate'. As long you don't kill you have not sinned even though you so hate that person to extent you would have loved to send him/her to the other side. The only thing stopping you is the commandment that says you shall not kill. Then you belong to the category of people listed in 1 Tim. 1:9-10. Consider Christ version of that commandment here:

Matthew 5:21-22 (KJV)
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now tell me Bidam, which of these is more complete? is it the one that deals with your external actions; the one that says you should not kill but is silent about (or even allows you to) hate? or is the one that that deals with the motive of the heart? which of these truly reflect Love (the purpose of the law)? You cannot be living according to the both laws, not when one already addresses the other. So Bidam, why live according to the mosaic law when you have access to its source?

This applies also to your attempt at tithing according to law. You Bidam are acting like a new recruit and the mosaic law is your garrison commander, when he says jump, you jump and when he tells you to tithe you tithe Your act of tithing is 'legalistic', it is an offering based on a response to stipulated requirement (some written letters) rather than the sincere offering of the heart, and this is contrary to what Christ preached. So you can understand why Apostle Paul did not encouraged the gentiles to tithe, it would amount to leading them away from Christ and back to the law.

Your case is made even worse because you are responding to a part of the law that was not even made for you. God defined his tithe and said it should be given to the levite as an inheritance. What that means is that when God says the Israelite robbed him, he was referring to the tithe given to the Levite as their inheritance. You cannot be paying the Levite inheritance to your pastor, and you cannot even be paying the inheritance because it was the duty of the people of Israel to pay, not yours.

So Bidam, this is my sermon for this beautiful Sunday morning specially dedicated to you

I hope you still remember that the Lord instructed that just as the priest of old lived off the meat on the altar in a similar manner preachers like zikkyy should also enjoy the fruit of their labor. So don't forget to drop your tithe and offerings in the offering plate on your way out

why sell the book when you can give it out for free. Afterall you don't need the sales proceed to be rich; why not stick to tithing.

1. Goshen
2. Logicboy

ijawkid: Lol.........I don put hole for the plate.....as jesoeul dey drop am na me dey collect am.....

we don't need your type in our church. With peeps like you around here Pastor Goshen will not be able to acquire that private jet God revealed to him

JeSoul: Another solid thread from brother Goshen.

You mean Pastor Goshen and in case you don't know, I am in charge of the offering plate around here so do the right thing *[size=4pt]gives J-soul the offering plate[/size]*

God's-Word:
I have written a book titled: why non-tithing christians stay poor and How tithing christians can become rich. The book is available in PDF format. Total of 88 pages. It reveals the hidden secrets to wealth through tithing. Do you believe in tithing and still at the bottom? Find out in this book the basic steps to take to lead you to financial breakthrough. Are you there and you don't believe in tithing, find out what you're missing in this book. If you've not had a chance to pay your tithe, find out how you can start paying. The Jews knew this secret and they used it to the fullest. That's why a larger percentage of them are wealthy today.
It costs #3,500 (naira) but i'll reduce it to #1,800 (naira) as a December bonus. Infact, take the book for #1,500 (naira) only. Xmas is all about giving. There's a money-back guarantee on this book. To get it, leave a comment. A short version of this book is available for free.

Bros I just have one question. If I buy your book today, read it and apply the content (hidden secrets), can you guarantee that I Will be a proud owner of a private jet by January 01, 2013? Though I don't usually settle for less but I can manage a private helicopter the thing is I really need to hit 2013 'flying'

JeSoul: Oga, can we see the short version of this book? post it here on the thread. Me I want to know what I'm missing

et tu, Sister J? so you sef dey look for bonanza anyways remember me when you unseat Carlos Slim & Bill Gate to top Forbes rich list so we can 'jollof' with you

Bidam: And stop dat foolish thinking of yours by saying God only spoke to the isrealites in the OT concerning tithes and offering..the Isrealities are just Types of what is to come..

Type of what?

Bidam: We are priest and Jesus is our High priest in the order of melchizedek..we pay our tithes to Jesus and not the temple..

Since there is no command to ignore the temple and pay tithe to Jesus, don't you think you are taking away from the law? The law says tithe to levite and even Jesus approved that levite should receive the tithe, why are you not adhering to the law? Did Jesus tell you to tithe to him?

Enigma: Ah Oga Zikky, I see say you don get your proper mojo back. E go be the spambot - dem don even give am one kind name like that sef. The thing been catch me too on one occasion like that.

no be small thing o! In fact am going to tithe something this Sunday to celebrate my freedom.

Enigma: Enuwe, keep doing what you're doing.

Thank you bros.

Bidam: The law defines our expected behavior..it is NOT LEGALISM..DON'T USE BABYLON(WORLDLY SYSTEMS) TO DEFINE GOD'S LAWS AND PRINCIPLES..THEY ARE FAR ABOVE THE WORLDY SYSTEMS.

It is very much 'legalism'. Adherence to the law is usually because the law requires it. Take the case of the father lays down certain rules for the son (defined as expected behavior), i.e. "you must do your homework when you come back from school" (punishment might be the son will be denied of his favorite program on t.v.); "you must go to bed by 10p.m., no late night t.v"; "if you must go out with friends, i want you back latest 8.00p.m". Now we know parents do this out of love for their children, but the reaction will be different from the child's end; It's most likely a stubborn child that requires these rules. without these rules, it's possible the child will not be doing his homework as required, and keep late nights. Consider a situation where there is a strong relationship between son and father, where son understands the love and wishes of the father for him; a relationship where the son 'trusts' the father's guidance; where the son knows the father want the best for him, the son will not be needing the set of rules to the right thing. He knows the father wants him to excel, there will be no rules for doing the homework; he is not going to wait for threats from the father, he will do his homework and put in extra efforts to get good grades.

So what can we say is the purpose of the law?

"According to Paul, the law has a negative purpose: It was added because of transgressions. Paul has already demonstrated what the law does not do: it does not make anyone righteous before God; it is not based on faith; it is not the basis of inheritance. So if the law is divorced from righteousness, faith and inheritance of the blessing, to what is law related? Paul says that the law is related to transgressions. A transgression is the violation of a standard. The law provides the objective standard by which the violations are measured. In order for sinners to know how sinful they really are, how far they deviate from God's standards, God gave the law. Before the law was given, there was sin (see Rom 5:13). But after the law was given, sin could be clearly specified and measured (see Rom 3:20; 4:15; 7:7). Each act or attitude could then be labeled as a transgression of this or that commandment of the law......

.....In order to clarify the relation of the law to the promise, Paul poses a contrary-to-fact hypothesis: If a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. The very way that Paul phrases this hypothesis (as a contrary-to-fact conditional statement) indicates that he does not for a moment think the law can impart life. By life Paul means living in right relationship with God: "that I might live for God". If the law could empower one to live in a right relationship with God, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. This was in fact the position of the rival teachers in the Galatian churches. They were promoting the law as the way to live for God. It was actually their position that set the law in direct opposition to the promise; it contradicted the gospel. For as Paul has already said, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"......

.....By reducing all to the level of sinners, the law prepares the way for the gospel. But neither should the law be viewed as if it were the same as the gospel. The law has a negative purpose: it makes us aware of our sin. But it does not, indeed it cannot, set us free from bondage to sin. The promise of blessing comes only through faith in Christ.The Law Is a Jailer and a Disciplinarian....

.....The Mosaic law was given not only as a permanent standard for all humanity but also as a temporary system to supervise a particular people. As we read through the Mosaic law we are impressed with a complex system of laws that were set in place to guide the conduct of the Jewish people. According to Paul's imagery, the law functioned as a jailer to lock up the Jewish people in a vast system of legal codes and regulations. But that lockup was meant to be only temporary...."

The above is an extract from another argument, i lifted some portion that has to do with the purpose of the law as i see it aligns with my thoughts. You can find the full article here - - - > http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Gal/Understanding-Law

Stipulating a fixed % of giving was required because the Israelite would not have supported their brothers from the tribe of Levi. We have gone beyond just complying with the requirement of the law. You need to look at the underlying source of the law, which just as stated by Christ is love. The reason Christ in Mathew 5:23-24 made the comment below:

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

If a tither had not adopted a legalistic approach to the law, why would he/she abandon (or pass by) a brother/sister in serious need and render his tithe first (on the ground that the tithe is more important)? A behavior that does not align with Christ comment above.

The law for us as Christians is not in the form of written codes, our connection with God is not based on a list of dos & don'ts, it is based on our relationship with Christ. We fulfill the law by trusting in Christ and allowing the spirit of God to lead us.

Romans 8:14 (NKJV)
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Bidam: Love(john3:16) is never independent of the law.

It depends. from the practitioners perspective, love could be independent of the law. Adherence to the law is most times not based on love.

Bidam: The law is useless as a standard to be kept in order to gain approval before God

Good talk. I wonder why you are still bent on adhering to the law.

Bidam: Law and Love are never ENEMIES, they are just opposite, this is where u guys miss the whole point.

if they are opposite, what is that telling you? are you sure you are not confused?

Bidam: Also listen what John the beloved says: this is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome

..and what are these commands? - to love God and love your neighbor. I agree it is not burdensome

Bidam: ... REMEMBER JESUS NEVER CONDEMNS TITHING(MAT23:23)..

There was no need for Jesus to condemn tithing. the beneficiaries were still in charge officiating in the temple.

Bidam: @bernimore...you make me laff..you neither know the scriptures nor the power that lies therein..Did Jesus actually tells u He came to annul the law? Hear the words of the master Himself,the epitome of success:DDO NOT THINK THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; I HAVE NOT COME TO ABOLISH THEM BUT TO FULFILL THEM. I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH DISAPPEAR, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER, NOT THE LEAST OF A PEN, WILL BY ANY MEANS DISAPPEAR FROM THE LAW UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED. ANYONE WHO BREAKS ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE COMMANDMENTS(tithes and offerings) AND TEACHES OTHERS TO DO THE SAME WILL BE CALLED LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, BUT WHOEVER PRACTICES AND TEACHES THESE COMMANDS WILL BE CALLED GREAT IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. FOR I TELL YOU THAT UNLESS YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS SURPASSES THAT OF THE PHARISEES AND THE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, YOU WILL CERTAINLY NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN(MAT5:17-20)...

Since the law has not been annulled, you will be called least in the kingdom of heaven for breaking the some aspect of the law. e.g. when was the last time you rendered your sin, guilt or cereal offering? when was your last burnt offering? when was the last time you took your tithe to the Levite? you see you have broken some part of the law.

Bidam: stop bastardazing scriptures by claimin tithing is of pagan origin..

Before nko? you think Noah gave a tithe of his increase after the 40 day non stop shower?

Bidam: stop bastardazing scriptures by claimin tithing is of pagan origin..All men including Abraham and his father all originated from one man(Adam) who God created..along the line the fellowship with God might have been lost due to sin and evil deeds of man..

Are you saying there is nothing like paganism since all men originated from Adam?

Bidam: ..We even hear the heart cry of the Father when malachi prophesied that we have robbed Him in "tithes and offering".

which one be "we" for this matter. Don't tell me you were present when God was lambasting the Israelite for failing to remit their tithe. e be like you don come this world a number of times? i don dey fear you

Image123: Marvel not that i say unto YOU, YOU MUST be born again. Yes, you that is reading.

Who?

Image123: [size=16pt]Aaron became priest in Exodus 28.[/size]
Exo 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.
Exodus 28 is where the order of Aaron started. It was shortly followed by the house of Levi joining Aaron to minister.

Image123: This is the story behind the Levitical priesthood referred to in (If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?). [size=16pt]Under the levitical priesthod, the people received the law. What law? It's certainly not referring to the ones given in Exodus 20 as that was before the Levitical priesthood.[/size]

Image123: seeing there are so many laws referred in the Bible and they are not the same, [size=16pt]it becomes necessary to find out "What law?". Because, under the levitical priesthod, the people received the law, what law.[/size] Is it Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.? [size=16pt]No, this was even before the levitical priesthood.[/size] So, what law, it was the law of carnal commandments.
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
It was the law of ordinances and ceremonies. It was the law with which the levitical priesthood operated to justify a person. The priesthood justified the individual based on what he did, touched, tasted, handled etc. You were clean by rubbing this and killing that. You were unclean by touching this on so so day, or eating that, or doing those. It operated on carnal commandments. this was the covenant the levites received. They were to do kill this animal, take that part and burn, apply salt to the other part, take the ashes, do this and that. This was the process for justification. This is the law that is done away with in the new covenant. You don't need no cow or turtle dove to be clean or unclean in the new covenant. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,).

This is faulty reasoning. I see you are trying to exclude the laws dished out in exodus 20 (on the ground that the Levitical priesthood was not in place at the time). While i agree that the law being referred to includes the law of ceremonies, it does not exclude the instructions in Exodus 20 which were repeated after the Levitical priesthood was established. So one would be very correct to say the laws given in Exodus 20 was issued under the Levitical priesthood. You can read the book of Deuteronomy starting from Chapter 4 verse

Deuteronomy 4:44 (KJV)
44 And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel:

You will find the laws in Exodus 20 repeated from Chapter 5 verse 7:

7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. Neither shalt thou steal. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I would advise you read the whole of Deuteronomy (the Levitical priesthood was in place at the time). So sir, included in this 'law' is the command to tithe. You will not find 'the law of tithe' mentioned in the bible, but tithe is included in the law.

I will also agree the focus of the Hebrew chapter was not tithe, but where there has been a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the practice associated with it especially if the activity was tied to that priesthood that is being annulled.

Image123: But when you are justified by faith, you bein to show love for God and fellow men by obeying the law by grace. This time you are not under the law, looking for justification, but in faith in Christ, doing all things through Christ.

Do you now agree that love could not be achieved by adherence to the law?

Image123: @Opening Post3 contd........
Most of the early christians seem to be good givers. paul even said of some that he didn't need to teach them giving as they knew it. you don't teach an undergraduate alphabets or addition, it is for granted that he knows it.

So how come our pastors spend 'eternity' preaching giving by tithing? It's because they (pastors) have refused to teach the congregation what it means to love. Maybe they have given up on the congregation that they can never love and decided it would profit the church (& pastor) to just collect what they can collect (in the form of cash).

Image123: @Opening Post3 contd........
It was a similar issue with the Hebrews, they were givers.
Heb 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Heb 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
Heb 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
in this passage, the Spirit of God encourages the Hebrews and their giving, and enjoins them to follow Abraham.

Another attempt at legitimizing your tithing activities by reference to Abraham's rendering a tenth of war spoils. It is not stated anywhere in verse you verse above that the Hebrews should follow Abraham You see Pastor Kuns will continue to call you 'olodo'. I see you highlighted verse 12. For your information that verse is not referring to Abraham because Abraham did not 'inherit' the promise, he was given (or he received) the promise. The verse is referring to descendants of Abraham.

Image123: the sons of Levi, who receive[b]d[/b] the office of the priesthood, ha[b]d[/b] a commandment to take tithes of the people. They took tithes of the people, this is contrary to the statement of some antitithers i've encountered who say that the priests do not collect tithes of the people. This verse says they did. It says the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law.

The Hebrew verse is not just referring to the high priest alone, he was talking about the priestly tribe of Levi. It was the tribe of Levi that received the office of priesthood and we see instances in the bible the Levites are referred to as priests:

2 Chronicles 31:15 (KJV)
15 And next him were Eden, and Miniamin, and Jeshua, and Shemaiah, Amariah, and Shecaniah, in the cities of the priests, in their set office, to give to their brethren by courses, as well to the great as to the small:

Deuteronomy 10:8 (KJV)
8 At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day. ------>

<----- Joshua 3:2-3 (KJV)
And it came to pass after three days, that the officers went through the host; And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it.

Image123: The point been made in this verse and in the following two is that the Levi priests were elevated above their brethren to receive the offerings of God(they were the ones on the Lord's side), and how much more Melchizedek, who received tithes from Abraham. The person who received the tithe or the offering was considered as a representative of God, a person higher/greater than the giver of the offering.

I am surprised you are saying this. who told you Levi priests were 'elevated' above their brethren? and who told you that receiving offering make them higher/greater than their brethren. Another attempt to elevate pastors abi? am beginning to suspect you are a pastor. To think you even quoted Hebrews 5:1-3 but don't even understand it. Let me post in clearer English maybe it will make more sense to you:

Hebrews 5:1-3 (NIV)
Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.

Image123: This is given for verses 5 and 6. The priest blesses the people because the people are the less and the priest the better.

Nonsense!

Image123: Aaron represents the Levitical priesthood. Aaron's system/order dies(men that die receive), but Christ's priesthood/order doesn't die(it is witnessed that he liveth). So, Melchizedel order or Christ's order of priesthood is greater than Aaron/Levitical order because 1) Abraham gave to Melchi, 2) Abraham was blessed by Melchi, and 3) Melchi's order doesn't die. Then he stamps this position with another point in the next two verses.

Again you show lack of understanding of the Hebrew passage. is it the (melchi order) that is witness to 'liveth' or is it the priest himself? Here it is the nature of the priest that defines the priestly office. The order of Aaron is characterized by the longevity of the priest in office (prevented by death from being in office forever), but it is witnessed that Melchi liveth (Hebrews 7:3 Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, 4 thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever).

Image123: 3) Melchi's order doesn't die.

Order (or whatever you call it) don't have the qualities of life or death, it is the priest in office that determines if that priestly type (what you call order) continues to exist or not. You know that the Order of Aaron was still operating at the time the book of Hebrews was written and probably was in operation till 70.A.D.

vickyO: That Christ never condemned tithe and offerings.....that was stilling according to the law. We have argued that so much that I cannot over emphasis on it. The is the reason the Apostles didn't give strict teaching on tithe - because it wasn't the Apostles that were tithing what you said Christ didn't condemn, it was the scribes and pharisees; not the disciples.
i dont get this part.

Brother Goshen, you yet to respond to this lady o!