vooks:
My brother,
There may be no specific curse on tithing, coveting but Deuteronomy 27:26 pronounced a CURSE on breaking the Law. I believe that CURSE is sufficient. Do you need more than that?

Am sure you are imagining the Malachi non-tithing curse as non-Mosaic and probably 'universal', cutting across Old and New Testament. It was very Mosaic o. If breaking the Law attracts a CURSE, even before I read Malachi, I know not tithing puts me under a CURSE because tithing is part of the Mosaic Law

The commandment that ONLY Levites could offer sacrifices was not a Levitical Law but a non-Levitical Law; it was directed at the non-Levites because they were at a risk of attempting to carry out Levitical duties

Bidam:
How do you read your bible? The specifics are there. Deut 27:26 was the consensus conclusion on the outlined specifics, no addition, no subtraction. The truth is the tithes isn't included on such specifics not even offerings and the widows mite Jesus observed in the Luke gospel.

Malachi is a prophecy which some part is yet to be fulfilled. We are the spiritual Israel. What are the consequences of jumping off a cliff?

This is false, Moses read the whole sacrificial Laws to all and sundry present at that time. I don't know what you mean by levitical and non levitical laws, these are your man made ideologies.

vooks:


You don't make sense at all. Use English. Read Galatians 3:10 on the curse

You are spiritual Israel? then circumcise as well because physical Israel circumcised

Levitical Laws pertain to Levites and Levites alone. What did I say about brain?

Bidam:
I am actually getting bored with your unreasonable argument. Read the passage you quoted to me and get back with an answer. So Christ freed you from stealing to go back and steal using Gal 3:10 as a yard stick?

Ever heard of inward circumcision dumb head?

Give us those laws or quote them.

DrummaBoy:
A man truly taught by God will be humble rather than proud. The profound effect of gazing into the awesome grace of God manifested to sinners is enough to shut him up, while he gazes in awe and wonder; deeply humbled that a holy God will deal with mere sinners. This humility further opens him up to more knowledge of God and greater humility.

trustman:


You never seem to face issues in a straightforward way.
You prefer banters to clear-cut presentation.
I want to believe your partner rhyme john did more work
on that tithe discussion thread than you.

Here, instead of focusing on Malachi you now want to
divert attention away to some other thing.

You're so ... ... ... SMH

Candour:


The bold is "perceive". I guess its the delusions that confused your knowledge of the English language so suddenly.

I don't watch Nigerian senior male national team anymore even before their last caf cup triumph. I don't need over pampered footballers to give me high BP so the scores did not bother me. Infact I'm happy for SA.

Try and get something to stand on. It's a coward that acts like you do.

Candour:



Paul used it in his epistles to gentile Christians to drive home a point. Can you point to one instance in the new testament under grace where ''devourers'' was used to drive home any point about christian giving?

Image123:


See what you're standing on, interesting. Parseived typos. You're deluded on many fronts so i will not worry that you were deluded to guess on my knowledge of the language. Keep on standing, I'm seated.

Image123:

I'd rather banter and have a good laugh than waste the effort.

vooks:
ARGUMENTS AGAINST INTERPOLATING MALACHI'S 'DEVOURER'
1. You can't arrogate the same freedom Paul had to pick themes from OT and ascribe to them whatever you fancy. Paul was inspired but you are not. He is not your equal.That's stepping outside scriptures and adding to them

2. There are numerous (close to twenty) clear passages on giving in the NT,ideal opportunities to inject the devourer motif but none remotely tends to that. NT giving is on 'as you purposes in your heart' and 'without compulsion' basis, and your devourer-consequence of non-tithing not to mention tithing itself is contrary to this grace principle

3. In the entire 1900 years of post-NT Christianity, nobody appealed to the devourer motif until very recently. You can bet if the verse was ever invoked, it was long after Pentecost probably together with tithes.This is clearly a late invention

Image123:


See what you're standing on, interesting. Parseived typos. You're deluded on many fronts so i will not worry that you were deluded to guess on my knowledge of the language. Keep on standing, I'm seated.

Image123:


Hahaha, you don't get it, how could you? You've probably received a strong delusion package on this. So Paul used it to drive home a point, but if we drive home points, you call it twisting and dishonesty and almost bite your own hands on context? There is a God oh.

mbaemeka:
1. I am not competing with Paul. He was a Pastor, teacher, prophet, Evangelist and Apostle and I am none of the afore- that much is clear, but he didn't possess singularity of interpretations WRT the scriptures especially when mine do not contradict his- which they don't.

2. Paul quoted Exodus 20 (the very Law itself) in Ephesians 6 when he said we were to honor our parents and he explained the blessing there as he got it from the OT- that you will live long. That's exactly what I have done with Malachi 3. I took that verse from the OT but I also included the blessing from the verse as an addendum. That is scripturally valid. Now if there is a flipside to Exodus 20 there would also be a flipside to Malachi 3 in relation to the blessings. That is, if God said he would rebuke the devourer for your sake then that also means if you don't tithe he won't rebuke the devourer. It is the same way I can say if you do not honor your parents as the bible says then God isn't obliged to keep the blessings for you. That's equally scripturally valid bro.

3. As per when something was "introduced" or not- it doesn't matter. What should matter is if it is true based on the scriptures. The scriptures say Satan is the chief devourer. The scriptures say God can rebuke him on behalf of some people. The same scriptures say the 'some people' are tithers. That's lucid enough don't you think?

vooks:
John the Baptist was under the Law and as such his injunctions to those under the Law do not necessarily apply to Christians especially on Mosaic Law just like Jesus'.

Now, we know that wife-inheritance was part of the Law. Recall the Saduccees unsuccessfully testing Jesus on resurrection by demonstrating the absurdity of the same? So whatever John saw Herod doing was not inheriting but forcibly taking his brother's wife while the brother was still alive. This amounts to adultery whether the wife belongs to the brother,cousin or anyone. The sin in question in both of these verses therefore is adultery. Adultery is condemned in the NT in just about each of the 27 books. This means you don't need Leviticus to tell you adultery is sin

Am sure you are trying to ensnare somebody by demonstrating their inconsistency in applying Torah. If I were you, I'd pick another verse like say On beastiality.

Candour:


Same scenario. Moses spoke there to Israelites. be under no illusons bro, those he spoke to understood perfectly that he refered to oxen and corn. Infact it probably was the basis for Solomon's proverb below

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel


Paul used it in his epistles to gentile Christians to drive home a point. Can you point to one instance in the new testament under grace where ''devourers'' was used to drive home any point about christian giving? You'll never find a single one because that thing called devourer coming on a christian for not following a law for jewish people is totally alien and opposed to the gospel of grace. imagine Paul telling the Macedonian Christians already reeling from deep poverty themselves that devourers would come their way in addition if they do not pay tithe? what kind of a God would he be portraying to them? when even the original tithe law in all its severity made provision for the poor to receive tithes?

Your theory of devourers and Oyakhilome's theory of robbers is totally wrong and unfounded as doctrines for Christians.

Image123:

I don't usually respond to rude people just in case you are mostly ignored. I didn't ask for a teaching or opinions, i asked two questions which expect two answers, that's all.
Do you think that scripture above applies to a Christian saved by the blood of Christ today? Or we can go get our brother's wife as we're saved by God? Also i said nothing about inheritances so save your sermons for Sunday service.

vooks:


Image123 wondered whether the two verses apply to Christians. Am saying they apply but not because the verses exist but rather due to the NT emphatic censuring of adultery.

vooks:
1. You have contradicted Pauline and entire NT giving when you place such a price for not doing it. I have explained why. Of ALL the giving verses, none drew the scary motif of the devourer but you can show me if I missed something

2. We have many giving messages in the NT with the conspicuous ABSENCE of the Malachi 'flipside'. You are adding to scriptures by extrapolating Malachi into Christianity

3. When something was introduced is an honest objective test of a doctrine. Regardless of how much you imagine your understanding to be scriptural, you can't possibly beat collective wisdom of the Christians before you who drank of the same Spirit as you. At this point I would like to ask you to give me ONE truth you/Oyaks posses you believe Paul missed yet it is scriptural. Name any

Image123:


Unbelievable, i just read this fellow tell me they do not necessarily apply. Well well.

vooks:
1. They don't apply to Christians
2. You have innumerable injunctions against adultery in the NT and on that basis, you have no right whatsoever to climb on your brother's bed Adulterers and whoremongers God will punish

trustman:


Any significant thing required of the Christian will be found in the New Testament epistles which constitute the blueprint for living the Christian life.

Image123:

Oh Lord, the ping pong answers. I guess the NT is being legalistic as we're not under the law na.

Bidam:
Ok, never mind.

mbaemeka:


1. I didn't place a price for not doing it. God did. He didn't say you are cursed for not doing it in the NT, he said I would do this for those that obey. So if the curse was that antitithers would have been broke in the OT, in the NT they won't be broke for they are not cursed. But the tithers will be blessed for doing it.

Again I didn't mention the scary motive of the devourer to scare any one into giving. I mentioned him to show the givers what blessings they were receiving. There is an astronomical difference between the two.

2. I didn't add the Malachi flipside. Just like the Exodus 20 had a blessing to it the same blessing remained status quo even into the NT. I mentioned Malachi 3 to reference the blessing/promise there.

3. It is not about what Paul missed. I never said he missed anything. But people's understanding of what Paul said can be misplaced and that is a function of those who were responsible for passing out the information. If People in authority in the 16 through 18th centuries believed that Tongue and Tongues were different, don't you think they would be culpable for disseminating the wrong teaching that some presently believe?

Image123:


Antitithers think tithe is very significant.

vooks:
Bidam,
The penalties don't apply to Christians and that is why you don't stone adulterers or witches. Or do you stone them in Naija?
Read for yourself Deuteronomy 27:26, Jeremiah 11:3 and Ezekiel 18:4

Image123:

Oh Lord, the ping pong answers. I guess the NT is being legalistic as we're not under the law na.

Image123:


Ah ah, but when i said this same thing in different words on Malachi, you called it suspended thinking, pretense and being hard of hearing(whatever that means). There is a God oh.

Image123:


Antitithers think tithe is very significant.

vooks:
The significance of tithing is not in the 10% but in the enslavement of believers through half-hearted attempts at keeping Torah, the blatant mutilation of scriptures, the dishonesty and the subsequent Pharisaical pride; 'I am not like other men, I give tithes of my all....'