trustman:



Hagin said:

"Making a New Testament application of Old Testament technicalities violates every principle of Bible interpretation, especially when there isn't a single New Testament usage of the word "firstfruits" in the context in which it is being preached by some ministers. 

The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers."

The commonsense understanding of what Hagin said is simply this: Hagin does not advocate the demand for or the paying of 'Firstfruits'. 
However since your church believes in it strongly you are finding it hard to wriggle out of it. 
You have good 'comprehension' don't you?
Then explain these portions to us. 

Gombs:

I give in cash terms because I can't give my job to church

Candour:

If you believe that he didn't condemn it but you DO NOT DENY that he said First fruits has nothing to do with money and has nothing to do with support for ministers, i would ask how you now do your first fruits giving? If you agree that first fruits has NOTHING to do with money, what then makes up first fruits today?

Gombs:

If the above colored is what you lot want to use to nullify first fruits, if from it you conclude Hagin condemned it, why then doesn't it apply To tithing Hagin wrote about? You remember Hagin said some of his brethren brought the cotton they farmed as tithes, did Hagin send them away? What if they brought cash?

"Making a New Testament application of Old Testament technicalities violates every principle of Bible interpretation, especially when there isn't a single New Testament usage of the word "firstfruits" in the context in which it is being preached by some ministers.

Gombs:


If the above colored is what you lot want to use to nullify first fruits, if from it you conclude Hagin condemned it, why then doesn't it apply To tithing Hagin wrote about?


For the last time, Hagin was using the above colored to say those preachers who claim to be priests and that firstfruits belong to them, that was the technicalities. It however is not the center point of the book, why you guys are carrying it on the head is bewildering.

vooks:
goD mbaemeka before whom Christ's knees will bow and beg to take you home,thinking is a free gift even to satanists. Please use it
How would a private rebuke to Peter help the Jews who were with Paul the likes of Barnabas who were equally affected by the hypocrisy.

THEM ALL means all those who witnessed and followed Peter's hypocrisy and probably the thoroughly embarrassed Gentiles as well. Either way, that was not a private rebuke

You want to know who were sent from James? Study Acts 15 and see who were sent to deliver the first Christian epistle:
Acts 15:22,25-26 King James Version (KJV)
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:......

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I can see you are mischievously attempting to read between the line and claim that it is Holy Spirit revelation who told you that Peter was rebuked before the apostles and elders AWAY from the holloi poloi. Negro try hard and come up with a more intelligent excuse for covering your goD Oyaks

Read again
Galatians 2:13-14
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

See the 'THEM ALL' of verse 14 are 'THEY' that 'WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY' and they include the 'OTHER JEWS' of verse 13 among whom we had Barnabas who did not come from Jerusalem(v9)?


PS: Am really curious as to whether this incidence happened before or after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 & Cornelius conversion. I lean towards AFTER seeing Peter readily sat with Gentiles and the circumcision debate appears to have been settled from Paul's words in the rebuke. This would heavily magnify Peter's hypocrisy and warrant not just a sharp rebuke but a public one and a record of the same to another church as a stern warning. Does it bother you that Paul had no qualms publicizing this event long after it occurred to the Galatia commoners?

Goshen360:


Please, where did Jesus PAID tithe while on earth?

trustman:


Theophany?
Uhm!!

Gombs:


I give in cash terms because I can't give my job to church

mbaemeka:


How you can see the obvious truths and still clutch on to strawman's is what is most befuddling of all. It might come to you as a shock but I have done a very good research on what occured in ANTIOCH and not Galatia as you posited. I however agree with you that Paul's rebuke of Peter happened after the Jerusalem council but I disagree with you on the who and who that were there while it transpired and it is not hard to know why.

Shortly after the Jerusalem meeting Paul and Barnabas were on their way to Antioch to continue with the Gentile commission. James (the leader of the Jerusalem church) sent his 'Chief Men' or 'Excos' to join them and ensure that Paul adhered to the conclusions of the meeting i.e give to the poor, don't let them eat meat strangled or dedicated to Idols etc., the very things that Paul was willing to do. Peter later joined in before Silas and co (the Chief men) arrived and behaved himself only to act like a hypocrite when they came. Some of the men that came with Silas also behaved hypocritically and their antics swayed Barnabas to join in. This attitude infuriated Paul so he corrected Peter infront of them all. Them all being- the chief men like Silas and co, (co means other Jews that travelled with him) and Barnabas, Paul's companion. Paul did it to their hearing because they were all LEADERS whose conduct was important because the new members will always seek to emulate them. Paul was correcting Peter in love. He didn't do so in front of any crowd or congregation neither did he take it to a group of the misinformed. Where do you think he learned it from? JESUS.

When John the Baptist started expressing doubts about Jesus' messiahship he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was truly the sent one. Jesus healed a couple of people in their presence and told them to relay the information to John that: the blind saw, lame walked etc. Then at the end he whispered a correction to John. He said "blessed is he who he is not offended by me". Immediately after doing that Jesus faced the crowd and began to praise John publicly. He said not a single man born of a woman (prior to Jesus) had a greater calling than John. You see, Jesus corrected John in secret but he praised him openly. That's what love does.

Now do the needful and measure the reactions of you and some of your ilk with Jesus' or the word and let's see how close you measure up.

vooks:
Negro Please,
I have also studied deeply over the same. Read my favorite commentary, Cambridge Bible here;
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/galatians/2.htm
Turns out my hunch was right, Peter's epic hypocrisy is that he did this AFTER the Council in Jerusalem

Galatians is an epistle to the churches in Galatia. Paul mentions the Antioch incidence to the church(es) in Galatia. I never said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia but that he shared this thorough and public rebuke with Galatians and by extension the world( you and me). Paul published to millions Peter's error. mbaemeka finds this revolting, I find a sound example that ought to be followed. You do realize that we can take off this incidence from Galatians WITHOUT diluting Paul's message do you?

Commentaries aside,let's THINK. Peter's action provoked others into hypocrisy. Which others? I hazard that others are Jews already in Antioch. The verses again;

Galatians 2:12-14

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


1. The THEM ALL of verse 14 can't possibly refer to the THEM of verse 13 sidestepping the intermediate THEM of verse 13
2. The THEM of verse 13 is the 'OTHER JEWS' who dissembled

So the other Jews who dissembled MUST have been eating with the Gentiles before and ONLY stopped when Peter stopped.
Could these have been the ones who were sent from Jerusalem? Of course not because if they readily ate with the Gentiles, then Peter could not have been spooked

So my broda, don't attempt to restrict OTHERS to those who were sent from jerusalem because that is plain nonsense and baseless not to mention illogical.

mbaemeka:


Again with the warped logic initiated by the caprice to rebut the post without reading thoroughly to see the grey areas that are lost on you.

Paul and Barnabas are in Antioch. Peter comes to join in and is cohabiting with the Gentiles there in. Shortly after, Jews from Jerusalem come and Peter shifts away from the Gentiles. The Jewish brethren join him in the hypocrisy and even Barnabas, Paul's companion is equally swayed and begins to follow through. Paul sees the hypocrisy and corrects Peter in front of them all because:

1. Peter is a leader and he preached to Gentiles first.
2. Peter knew the truth but acted otherwise.
3. Peter's action made the other Jews (that respected him) to begin to copy him.

So Paul corrected them all by correcting the man who began the hypocrisy- Peter.

There's now a similar problem in Galatia. Jewish folks have infiltrated the Gentile camp and have begun sowing seeds of discord by mixing the law with grace. The Galatians are swayed by the brethren because these same brethren came from almighty James! So Paul is telling his church "there is nothing like mixing law and grace no matter who tells you that. In fact, in Antioch I corrected Peter when he acted like a hypocrite because he being a jew acts like a Gentile but then tried to force Gentiles to do what Jews do. I corrected him because Christ places no such bondage on us"

That's the lesson we are to learn there and it was communicated by a leader to his church.

mbaemeka:
I can see you edited your post but still ended it with the same inanity that I have sought to address since time immemorial. The OTHERS and THEM ALL were not floor members. Remember this was like a house and not necessarily in the synagogue (hence the "eating" so it was the Chief men (leaders) that joined in with Peter. Paul had to correct them all because they are the same ones who will go about preaching the gospel. He wanted them to do so devoid of hypocrisy.

mbaemeka:


Calm down bro, I know what I am talking about. There is an astronomical difference between him being the SACRIFICE and him being the HIGH PRIEST. Jesus death on the cross was his duty as the SACRIFICE while his role in using his blood in the Holy of Holies in heaven was his duty as the HIGH PRIEST. When we give tithes we proclaim he is great as a high priest and that he is alive, same way the communion proves that he truly died as the sacrifice. Communion and Tithes are related and if you are spiritual you would see it. Melchizedek received tithes and then brought the communion to Abraham. Communion says Christ died and Tithes say Christ is alive.

NOTE: I won't say anymore on this issue again.

vooks:
Negro Please,
I have also studied deeply over the same. Read my favorite commentary, Cambridge Bible here;
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/galatians/2.htm
Turns out my hunch was right, Peter's epic hypocrisy is that he did this AFTER the Council in Jerusalem

Galatians is an epistle to the churches in Galatia. Paul mentions the Antioch incidence to the church(es) in Galatia. I never said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia but that he shared this thorough and public rebuke with Galatians and by extension the world( you and me). Paul published to millions Peter's error. mbaemeka finds this revolting, I find a sound example that ought to be followed. You do realize that we can take off this incidence from Galatians WITHOUT diluting Paul's message do you?

Commentaries aside,let's THINK. Peter's action provoked others into hypocrisy. Which others? I hazard that others are Jews already in Antioch. The verses again;

Galatians 2:12-14

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


1. The THEM ALL of verse 14 can't possibly refer to the THEM of verse 13 sidestepping the intermediate THEM of verse 13
2. The THEM & THEIR of verse 13 is the 'OTHER JEWS' who dissembled

So the other Jews who dissembled MUST have been eating with the Gentiles before and ONLY stopped when Peter stopped.
Could these have been the ones who were sent from Jerusalem? Of course not because if they readily ate with the Gentiles and only stopped when Peter did, then Peter could not have been spooked

The logic is;
1. Peter is eating with Gentiles together with other Jews
2. Some Jews are sent from Jerusalem
3. Peter stops eating with Gentiles
4. Other Jews including Barnabas stop eating with the Gentiles as well
5. Peter is rebuked in front of other Jews who dubbed his hypocrisy

So my broda, don't attempt to restrict OTHERS to those who were sent from jerusalem because that is plain nonsense and baseless not to mention illogical.

mbaemeka:


Melchizedek is what Bible students call a Theophany. There is alot to be known about him but many are too hard of hearing so they would not understand. Please don't call me a thief again. I only had to state my disinterest in discussing tithes because it is unhealthy and never ending. As for me, I will tithe till Jesus comes.

Bless you.

christemmbassey:
you can run away bc you have nothing to defend ur crime(monetary tithe collection from christian) dats why you must LIE and twist every time you want to defend d tithe scam. Bro, Melchi 1ST OF ALL GAVE ABRAM BREAD AND WINE TO ELICIT D TITHE OF WAR SPOILS HE GOT, he did not give after recieving tithe. Stop this lie lie and twist twist, tithe is a BIG FRAUD.

Bidam:
Pls indulge my inquisitive mind, is this the ONLY message you teach your congregation? You are hardly on any threads except the tithe threads.

christemmbassey:
every monitoring spirit against me on Nl, die, die, die, die o, die o, die by fire, by force.!!!!!!! Ah ah ah ah ah ah na joke o o o! Prophet B, how far? Have you been missing me? Hope all is well? Grace and peac to you minus tithe.

Bidam:
Pls indulge my inquisitive mind, is this the ONLY message you teach your congregation? You are hardly on any threads except the tithe threads.

vooks:
Verse 2 AGAIN!!!
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Before them ALL means the chief culprit was reprimanded publicly. Or what's your definition of publicly?

Gombs:


Some folks obviously have comprehension and mathematical problems. You are a millionaire! Dear Lord Jesus!

You lot are hard to please. If I wear an expensive suit like 520k or so, you lot would complain, If I wear N250 shirt, una go complain, if I don't wear, you still will. Now, you are a millionaire, thank God. If I had said so, I'd have been boasting like your fellow band of misfits like to say.

If I had said "I got 9 clothing items for 800, 000k, your ilks would:

1. Call me a liar
2. Call me proud and boastful
3. Call me extravagant and that poor folks are everywhere
4. Etc

You would even say "Jesus was poor, he wore clothes Herod dashed him" "Paul bla bla bla" "Wofist are bla bla bla, they are not contended at all"
For eg a pastor bought a dog for$16, 000, alot of you guys came here and cried foul, as if you will tell him how to spend his money, of course the idea you lot has was that he uses church funds, if he has a dog of $2, you lot would still call him poor, and cheap. You just called yourself a millionaire, yet ... let me just be quiet.

I said I got clothing items worth 50k for 3k (miscellaneous expenses) . You folks said

1. Cheap
2. Okirika
3 etc

If I had said "I got 9 clothing items for 1000" you hypocrites would bellow. See you saying you wont wear a $2 cloth, if a pastor had said it, you'd run here open a thread and start typing rubbish.

The above are characteristics of all social critics, religious critics- anti-tithers and anti-wofs everywhere. Adherents of #judasiscarriotsm (giving the devil a run for his money).
I need not mention names 'cus they know themselves. The pull-him-down syndrome runs in their veins. They're unstable as water and believe me they don't excel! #fact
Nice job @Gombs
Remember the goal isn't to convince these guys, they're already lost in the "religious black-hole".
My only concern is that they're been given the opportunity to goof all the more. But then, for the sake of those watching from behind-the-scene I'll say, "it's worth it!" And my word for them "is let him who has ears-hear and he who has eyes-see 'cus when the Lord of all calls you to account on that day, you'd better be ready to quote scriptures to convince him." Thumbs up @Gombs

BabaGnoni:


It caused uneasiness in the original WoF thread.

vooks:

You are softening. God is good and greatly to be praised!

Paul corrected the erring guys by correcting the chief culprit and the instigator before them.
Paul publishes this years after to millions
So the whole world knows Peter stumbled
Facts are terribly stubborn

Gombs:


Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha, *falls of chair laughing.

Folks, chapter 8 would have to wait... work things, but today's Friday, right? We'd Continue with the chapter we did yesterday. I saw more cogent articles we need discuss in that book.

Nannymcphee, I have answered my bit, I won't go in circles. If you don’t want to give firstfruits in cash, give it in foodstuffs or whatever you wish, thanks.

christemmbassey:
you can run away bc you have nothing to defend ur crime(monetary tithe collection from christian) dats why you must LIE and twist every time you want to defend d tithe scam. Bro, Melchi 1ST OF ALL GAVE ABRAM BREAD AND WINE TO ELICIT D TITHE OF WAR SPOILS HE GOT, he did not give after recieving tithe. Stop this lie lie and twist twist, tithe is a BIG FRAUD.

vooks:
You are hopelessly obtuse

christemmbassey:
i was not refering to you when i posted to disagree with Hagin's position on the monetary tithe fraud, which to me amounted to double speak and dishonesty. But d truth in dat post hit ur otherwise dead conscience, now u're sounding as if i invited you for any discusions on tithe. If u like theophany or theophony,, when it suit ur greed you run to RC inventions, when it does nt you accuse them of worshiping Mary. Bro theophany can not defend tithe crime, try harder.

pickabeau1:


Can i get the link to this thread