Tithing and circumcision predate the Law. Are both of these in the Law?

Gombs:


The law. Are tithing and circumcision having origin under the law?

vooks:
Tithing and circumcision predate the Law. Are both of these in the Law?

Good, they were and should be, because they came from their father, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The law merely gave regulations. Now that the law has been annulled, should those that predated it be annulled too?

Notice how I answered you. Answer me in like manner. Don't side step it if we are to continue as gentlemen.

Yes. The answer to your question is yes.

The Law merely gave regulations? Let's test that;
1. Animal sacrifices predate Moses by the longest.
2. The Law,according to you, 'merely' regulated animal sacrifices.
3. The Law/regulation governing animal sacrifices was annulled but animal sacrifices predating it remained

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices?

Gombs:


Good, they were and should be, because they came from their father, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The law merely gave regulations. Now that the law has been annulled, should those that predated it be annulled too?

Notice how I answered you. Answer me in like manner. Don't side step it if we are to continue as gentlemen.

vooks:
Yes. The answer to your question is yes.
The Law merely gave regulations? Let's test that;
1. Animal sacrifices predate Moses by the longest.
2. The Law,according to you, 'merely' regulated animal sacrifices.
3. The Law/regulation governing animal sacrifices was annulled but animal sacrifices remained

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices?

Bro, you said those that predated the law should be anullued, you didn't say why! Put the covenant in perspective, was it anullued too? God said it was permanent, and forever, from generation to generation. Did God lie by anulling the covenant sealed by circumcision?

I am demonstrating the absurdity of clinging to a Mosaic practice simply because the same predated Moses. This is a popular argument by the tithing brigade. It goes like this; tithing may have been annulled together with other Laws but since it predates Moses, it an 'eternal' principle. So what was annulled was the regulations of this principle but the principle remains. This means a Christian tithing is not legalism or reverting back to the annulled Law

But those who use this line of argument are at pains to explain why they no longer circumcise as circumcision similarly predates Moses. Nor can they explain why they no longer offer animal sacrifices Abel,Noah or Abraham style without the Mosaic 'baggage of regulations'

My brother, you asked for simple answers and I did just that.
Let me repeat my question and I pray to Jesus that you will answer in like manner without sidestepping.

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices?

Gombs:


Bro, you said those that predated the law should be anullued, you didn't say why! Put the covenant in perspective, was it anullued too? God said it was permanent, and forever, from generation to generation. Did God lie by anulling the covenant sealed by circumcision?

When you are ready to answer me...I'd Continue. It's ok if you can't. Meanwhile, aint you circumcised?

But those who use this line of argument are at pains to explain why they no longer circumcise as circumcision similarly predates Moses.

Pastor Chris is on stage. See you in hours time.

I have answered your question.
ALL preMosaic practices, circumcision,animal sacrifices,tithing... that were included in Moses were effectively annulled when Moses was annulled. So you can't revive any of those by claiming they are somewhat 'eternal' and that only their 'regulation' was annulled

Am circumcised sir. African way none the less. By the river without shedding no tear., no flinching.But I did that to fulfil my culture not because Abraham was told to go after foreskins

Gombs:
When you are ready to answer me...I'd Continue. It's ok if you can't. Meanwhile, aint you circumcised?



Pastor Chris is on stage. See you in hours time.

Gombs:


Well, let God determine that. Until he comes, I wikl keep tithing, be very much assured I do these with the right motive and a pure heart, not grudgingly and debates.

So you have chosen on your own to use the tithing example that was before the Mosaic law to be your standard for your doing it today. [ Please give yourself a pat on the back for this ingenuity ]. 


You can be sincerely mistaken. Unless you do things God's way you wouldn't get his approval. You may think you are doing it from a pure heart but as long as it is not in line with God's way it will still get his disapproval. 

When you use a verse that has no jurisdiction over tithing to defend it what right motive or a pure heart is in that?

Remember Uzzah? Did he have the right motive and a pure heart? What was the result? 

God honors his word not sincere motive or anything else. 

vooks:
Yes. The answer to your question is yes.

The Law merely gave regulations? Let's test that;
1. Animal sacrifices predate Moses by the longest.
2. The Law,according to you, 'merely' regulated animal sacrifices.
3. The Law/regulation governing animal sacrifices was annulled but animal sacrifices predating it remained

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices?

I see these guys in trouble with intelligent hot seat questions.

vooks:
I have answered your question.
ALL preMosaic practices, circumcision,animal sacrifices,tithing... that were included in Moses were effectively annulled when Moses was annulled. So you can't revive any of those by claiming they are somewhat 'eternal' and that only their 'regulation' was annulled

Am circumcised sir. African way none the less. By the river without shedding no tear., no flinching.But I did that to fulfil my culture not because Abraham was told to go after foreskins

Ok, what about the covenant sealed with circumcision? Was it annulled too?

My brother,
I need to look that up first. It is more involving and has a bearing on the place of Israel in God. Paul spent three chapters of Romans tackling it. But my feeling,and I may be wrong, is the covenant with Abraham is fully realized in Christ meaning any descendant of Abraham coming to Christ no longer needs circumcision. Circumcision now is a mere cultural practice with ZERO spiritual implications on the male Jew.

I note you never answered my question. For the last time I will repeat it and allow me to judge your spirit condemned with inconsistency over appealing to pre-Mosaic practices if you won't answer the question.

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

Gombs:


Ok, what about the covenant sealed with circumcision? Was it annulled too?

vooks:
The best example is William Branham. Am sure you know how disappointed his adherents were when he failed to resurrect. Obsession with rapture is not a preserve for the WOF movement. Jehovah's witnesses have been at it long before the 60s.

Paul at not time expected Christ to return while he was still alive. Am sure you have in mind the resurrection verses in 1 Cor 15 and Thessalonians. His attitude was Christ CAN return during our lifetime not Christ WILL. When you say Chriat WILL,you are indirectly placing a time on his coming. If you are 50 years young, you are saying He will return in the next 60 years max. Here is one such man. A crowd pull for sure. https://www.nairaland.com/2002872/here-prophet-claiming-malachi-4s

There is a recurring theme of 'impact'. Who has had more impact between WOFers and non-WOFers? If impact means pulling most crowds, then WOFers win hands down. Does that vindicate their message? If it does, then Islam is a true faith. The 'impact' theme is basically some subtle blackmail, 'you are too few, you can't possibly criticize them because they are too big'. Watch it

Thanks for making my point. Let anyone feel free to point out where WOFers were claiming that Jesus WILL return in their days. What I've seen christians - WOF or not - do over the years is to look at events around us and think the end is near. Sometimes, it evokes and invokes a sense of urgency that seeks to take the message of salvation to many people to save them before the opportunity is permanently lost. To make a false claim about WOF to satisfy some fanciful thoughts has become a pastime of some.

In terms of impact, you miss the point. First off, Islam does not come into the discussion. They do not win souls by preaching. They're growing by force, bribes or births. Second, Islam confirms that multitudes will choose the broad way. Choosing the broad way is different from widely disseminating your message.

At no time did Jesus want us to get the message only to a few people. He said the message will be preached to the end of the world before the end comes. Unlike those who link small crowds coming to hear them preach to Jesus' statement about the narrow way, Jesus said no such thing. His own ministry confirmed it. He had thousands coming to hear Him. His disciples got the message to thousands. They did not hide under any narrow way excuse. If your message is not getting to many, e.g., nobody is visiting your blog, it's not necessarily because narrow is the gate. It could be your message is nothing or you do not know how to get it across.

Narrow way simply means that you'll get to many, but only a few will accept. So, you can't use that as an excuse for explaining why you're not getting to many first and jumping to the fact that they did not choose you. Also, what is the definition of "few" and "narrow"? In a world of 7 billion and counting, 1 billion truly accepting Jesus is less than 20 percent. That's narrow, as it leaves 80 percent out, yet we're not anywhere near that. Or you guys think it's only narrow when only 1 percent accepts?

Finally, if you guys did not care about getting your message to many, why are you at NL that has a large audience? Why not find a small Naija-oriented site that reaches a few hundreds? That sure is narrow.

vooks:
My brother,
I need to look that up first. It is more involving and has a bearing on the place of Israel in God. Paul spent three chapters of Romans tackling it. But my feeling, and I may be wrong, is the covenant with Abraham is fully realized in Christ meaning any descendant of Abraham coming to Christ no longer needs circumcision. Circumcision now is a mere cultural practice with ZERO spiritual implications on the male Jew.

I note you never answered my question. For the last time I will repeat it and allow me to judge your spirit condemned with inconsistency over appealing to pre-Mosaic practices if you won't answer the question.

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

I'm not interested in what you think or feel...give me scriptures. You haven't answered me but yet demand an answer? If I answer you now, you'd abandon my question and follow the answer in a desperate move to keep relevance.

Question is, did the covenant God sealed with circumcision, anulled too as you claimed all pre mosiac acts like tithing are annulled?

nlMediator:


Thanks for making my point. Let anyone feel free to point out where WOFers were claiming that Jesus WILL return in their days. What I've seen christians - WOF or not - do over the years is to look at events around us and think the end is near. Sometimes, it evokes and invokes a sense of urgency that seeks to take the message of salvation to many people to save them before the opportunity is permanently lost. To make a false claim about WOF to satisfy some fanciful thoughts has become a pastime of some.

In terms of impact, you miss the point. First off, Islam does not come into the discussion. They do not win souls by preaching. They're growing by force, bribes or births. Second, Islam confirms that multitudes will choose the broad way. Choosing the broad way is different from widely disseminating your message.

At no time did Jesus want us to get the message only to a few people. He said the message will be preached to the end of the world before the end comes. Unlike those who link small crowds coming to hear them preach to Jesus' statement about the narrow way, Jesus said no such thing. His own ministry confirmed it. He had thousands coming to hear Him. His disciples got the message to thousands. They did not hide under any narrow way excuse. If your message is not getting to many, e.g., nobody is visiting your blog, it's not necessarily because narrow is the gate. It could be your message is nothing or you do not know how to get it across.

Narrow way simply means that you'll get to many, but only a few will accept. So, you can't use that as an excuse for explaining why you're not getting to many first and jumping to the fact that they did not choose you. Also, what is the definition of "few" and "narrow"? In a world of 7 billion and counting, 1 billion truly accepting Jesus is less than 20 percent. That's narrow, as it leaves 80 percent out, yet we're not anywhere near that. Or you guys think it's only narrow when only 1 percent accepts?

Finally, if you guys did not care about getting your message to many, why are you at NL that has a large audience? Why not find a small Naija-oriented site that reaches a few hundreds? That sure is narrow.

@the 1st bolded, do you have anybody who has remotely insinuated that Christ wants the message restricted?

@the 2nd bolded, the Catholics claim a population of 1.2billion worldwide, do you think they're all lost? CEC claims a population in millions, do you think they're all saved?

@the 3rd bolded, once again I ask. Can you point to one moniker that has remotely suggested that christians shouldnt spread the gospel message to the whole world? Mention it so i can join you in correcting the person.

I've always used the case of Christ to buttress his statement below

Matthew 7:13-14 KJV
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Christ preached to thousands yet only 500 were around just before his ascension and only 120 waiting in the upper room for the holy spirit, do you think he was a failure?

Rev Sun Myung Moon founded the unification church in the Koreas (a mega church) and also prospered greatly whilst at it, is/was he also doing the work of the kingdom?

About rapture, we are in agreement.

About impact? I used Islam explosion to show you that influencing the most is not the only mark, it matters the content of what you are influencing them. Let me use scriptures;
Matthew 23:15 (ESV)
15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves..
Enough said.

What invariably happens when this discussion approaches a stalemate, somebody cheekily reminds us that the person you are discussing is doing far much 'greater' for Christ than you. Juxtapose this against Bereans examining Paul. They were nobodies exhibiting skepticism over a man who died daily,met Christ face to face and had the most glorious revelations of heavens. Are they crazy?

Oyaks used this line to silence rumors of his divorce. Am sure you watched him distinguishing a man of God from the wife of a man of God. This is a spiritualized argument from authority. Who should test Oyaks doctrines, somebody who has distributed millions of periodicals in over 500 languages? That is how unreasonable you sound in defending him by appealing to his 'labour of love'

nlMediator:


Thanks for making my point. Let anyone feel free to point out where WOFers were claiming that Jesus WILL return in their days. What I've seen christians - WOF or not - do over the years is to look at events around us and think the end is near. Sometimes, it evokes and invokes a sense of urgency that seeks to take the message of salvation to many people to save them before the opportunity is permanently lost. To make a false claim about WOF to satisfy some fanciful thoughts has become a pastime of some.

In terms of impact, you miss the point. First off, Islam does not come into the discussion. They do not win souls by preaching. They're growing by force, bribes or births. Second, Islam confirms that multitudes will choose the broad way. Choosing the broad way is different from widely disseminating your message.

At no time did Jesus want us to get the message only to a few people. He said the message will be preached to the end of the world before the end comes. Unlike those who link small crowds coming to hear them preach to Jesus' statement about the narrow way, Jesus said no such thing. His own ministry confirmed it. He had thousands coming to hear Him. His disciples got the message to thousands. They did not hide under any narrow way excuse. If your message is not getting to many, e.g., nobody is visiting your blog, it's not necessarily because narrow is the gate. It could be your message is nothing or you do not know how to get it across.

Narrow way simply means that you'll get to many, but only a few will accept. So, you can't use that as an excuse for explaining why you're not getting to many first and jumping to the fact that they did not choose you. Also, what is the definition of "few" and "narrow"? In a world of 7 billion and counting, 1 billion truly accepting Jesus is less than 20 percent. That's narrow, as it leaves 80 percent out, yet we're not anywhere near that. Or you guys think it's only narrow when only 1 percent accepts?

Finally, if you guys did not care about getting your message to many, why are you at NL that has a large audience? Why not find a small Naija-oriented site that reaches a few hundreds? That sure is narrow.

Ok. You won't answer my question. You are conflicted and inconsistent in your appeal to pre-Mosaic practices. Sad.

Note my statement. ALL pre-Mosaic practices incorporated into Mosaic Law were annulled together with the rest of Mosaic Law. Examples are circumcision,tithing,animal offerings and so forth. This is WHY Christ Embassy never teaches pre-Mosaic animal sacrifices,circumcision but curiously enough, they retain tithing!

I don't know if the covenant was annulled or not. Educate me

Gombs:


I'm not interested in what you think or feel...give me scriptures. You haven't answered me but yet demand an answer? If I answer you now, you'd abandon my question and follow the answer in a desperate move to keep relevance.

Question is, did the covenant God sealed with circumcision, anulled too as you claimed all pre mosiac acts like tithing are annulled?

Gombs:


I'm not interested in what you think or feel...give me scriptures. You haven't answered me but yet demand an answer? If I answer you now, you'd abandon my question and follow the answer in a desperate move to keep relevance.

Question is, did the covenant God sealed with circumcision, anulled too as you claimed all pre mosiac acts like tithing are annulled?

1. You're about to twist what was anulled in the NT. I hope you can stand to this.

New International Version
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,

New Living Translation
When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature.

2. Maybe you need to understand what happened in the covenant of God NOT with Abraham BUT with Himself (a foreshadow of the New Covenant), BUT Abraham was a beneficiary just as Christians are beneficiaries to the New Covenant. So you will understand why Paul made a statement such as,

New International Version

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Galatians 3:18

vooks:
Ok. You won't answer my question. You are conflicted and inconsistent in your appeal to pre-Mosaic practices. Sad

I don't know if the covenant was annulled or not. Educate me

Don't mind him, he's about to twist. That circumcision was explained in the NT, it wasn't a seal to cause God to do what he promised but a sign of new life in Christ, a result of transformation. If he's ready to argue that, then he should be ready to annul the NT too . I'm watching him on this one.....

I find it decidedly convenient that of all pre-Mosaic practices, Christ Embassy sticks with tithing. They will not hesitate to remind you that it is an 'eternal principle' simply because it predates Moses. The reason is obvious, it is one doctrine from which they stand to immensely gain financially. How does circumcising males help their coffers? What about bloody animal sacrifices? They'd stain Oyak's Benny Hinn-esque wardrobe.

Sometimes back I debated with shdemidemi and debunked his 'speaking in an unknown tongue' is different from 'speaking in tongues' theory. He never responded. A week later, he resurfaces and aks me to define GRACE,WORKS and when GRACE was 'initiated'. He said upon answering these,he would respond to my rebuttal. I saw through his shenanigans and told him I was comfortable with whatever definition he believed in. In other words, I removed this condition to his response by AGREEING with him. He still refused to respond. So he won't educate me on GRACE and WORKS and he won't respond to me.

It is a classic strategy to kill an argument; put impossible pre-conditions to proceeding. Gombs wants to divert the debate to the Abrahamic covenant annulment. That's why for the sake of proceeding with the debate am prepared to work with whatever he thinks. With that out of the way, can he in the simplest words answer this;

How comes you don't offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

Goshen360:


Don't mind him, he's about to twist. That circumcision was explained in the NT, it wasn't a seal to cause God to do what he promised but a sign of new life in Christ, a result of transformation. If he's ready to argue that, then he should be ready to annul the NT too

vooks:
I find it decidedly convenient that of all pre-Mosaic practices, Christ Embassy sticks with tithing. They will not hesitate to remind you that it is an 'eternal principle' simply because it predates Moses. The reason is obvious, it is one doctrine from which they stand to immensely gain financially. How does circumcising males help their coffers? What about bloody animal sacrifices? They'd stain Oyak's Benny Hinn-esque wardrobe.

Sometimes back I debated with shdemidemi and debunked his 'speaking in an unknown tongue' is different from 'speaking in tongues' theory. He never responded. A week later, he resurfaces and aks me to define GRACE,WORKS and when GRACE was 'initiated'. He said upon answering these,he would respond to my rebuttal. I saw through his shenanigans and told him I was comfortable with whatever definition he believed in. In other words, I removed this condition to his response by AGREEING with him. He still refused to respond. So he won't educate me on GRACE and WORKS and he won't respond to me.

It is a classic strategy to kill an argument; put impossible pre-conditions to proceeding. Gombs wants to divert the debate to the covenant annulment. That's why for the sake of proceeding with the debate am prepared to work with whatever he thinks. With that out of the way, can he in the simplest words answer this;

How comes you don't offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

You're a wise man indeed. I have read most of your comments and we both tend to agree in most Christian doctrines in the Apostolic teachings. These men in pulpit are deceivers for gains. Many things pre-dated the law and none was continued by those who claim tithe pre-dated the law and still hold unto it. I'm one of those who have resisted these guys in the past but time is not much on my side these days but I thank God who's faithful for raising people like you when people like me are not having much time. Continue to fight the good fight of faith and preserve the Apostolic teachings. You're not alone!!!

vooks:
I find it decidedly convenient that of all pre-Mosaic practices, Christ Embassy sticks with tithing. They will not hesitate to remind you that it is an 'eternal principle' simply because it predates Moses. The reason is obvious, it is one doctrine from which they stand to immensely gain financially. How does circumcising males help their coffers? What about bloody animal sacrifices? They'd stain Oyak's Benny Hinn-esque wardrobe.

@the bolded, pls forget all the lies. That is a later day diversion because folks have become wiser about it. Hear from the head honcho. He knows the tithe he preaches has nothing to do with Abraham but Moses

From Rhapsody of Realities

https://www.nairaland.com/393253/rhapsody-realities-daily-devotional/9#8071513

The Giving That Stands You Out – Thursday April 7, 2011 – Pastor Chris

It’s impossible for a Christian who only gives his tithes and offerings to feel like an accomplished giver, but the Bible lets us know these aren’t enough. Your tithes for example belong to God, and He expects you to give them to Him anyway. The man who does otherwise is a [size=16pt]robber[/size]: “Will a man rob God: Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings” (Malachi 3:8 ).

God is not a man (Numbers 23:19); He’s God. So you MUST give Him your tithes and your offerings, as God. Actually, you pay your tithe; you don’t give it, as you would your free-will offering. So your tithe is not a gift, because you don’t pay a gift. Your offering on the other hand isnt just a donation made to the Church, but a sacrifice offered to a divine being. God actually demanded for it in Exodus 23:15: “…None shall appear before Me empty-handed” (AMP).

This is the true position. CEC believes a non tither is a ROBBER and you and i know where a robber will end up, don't we?

vooks:
I find it decidedly convenient that of all pre-Mosaic practices, Christ Embassy sticks with tithing. They will not hesitate to remind you that it is an 'eternal principle' simply because it predates Moses. The reason is obvious, it is one doctrine from which they stand to immensely gain financially. How does circumcising males help their coffers? What about bloody animal sacrifices? They'd stain Oyak's Benny Hinn-esque wardrobe.
Sometimes back I debated with shdemidemi and debunked his 'speaking in an unknown tongue' is different from 'speaking in tongues' theory. He never responded. A week later, he resurfaces and aks me to define GRACE,WORKS and when GRACE was 'initiated'. He said upon answering these,he would respond to my rebuttal. I saw through his shenanigans and told him I was comfortable with whatever definition he believed in. In other words, I removed this condition to his response by AGREEING with him. He still refused to respond. So he won't educate me on GRACE and WORKS and he won't respond to me.
It is a classic strategy to kill an argument; put impossible pre-conditions to proceeding. Gombs wants to divert the debate to the Abrahamic covenant annulment. That's why for the sake of proceeding with the debate am prepared to work with whatever he thinks. With that out of the way, can he in the simplest words answer this;
How comes you don't offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

I have a feeling you are deliberately misunderstanding Gombs. There were a couple of things that God instituted to those who served him before the law that he still included in the law for regulation. Things like Tithes, firstfruits, circumcision, and offering of animal sacrifices. These things were eternal because God expected it (since time immemorial) of all his children whose hearts were unreceptive and unconditioned to obey him as such so he imputed it into the law to 'force' them to obey him. Even at that he placed the blessings for obeying them and the accompanying curses for doing otherwise.

Many years later, God's son came to die for mankind and by so doing he nailed the righteous requirements for following the law. This means that men could be numbered as part of God's folks regardless of their obedience to the law which God didn't set it aside per se. He let someone else fulfil it and then he accredited the success of that person's obedience to those who were to become part of his folk before he cancelled it.

Now the question is this; did the law that came years after the principles of God were instituted, annul ALL the principles even if those principles were still listed in the law that was cancelled? The answer is NO. The cancellation of the law was ONLY in respect to the righteous requirements from observing it and the concomitant curses for not doing so. The law or better still some of the principles in it were not cancelled in practice. A good example is circumcision that has been thrown about by both parties. Paul never said circumcision was to be done away with. He himself circumcised some gentile converts. Paul said circumcision was cancelled as a RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENT. Meaning that, whether I am circumcised or not, I am righteous in God's eyes as long as I believe in the death and resurrection of his son. But that didn't stop your parents from circumcising you and I am very sure it didn't stop you from circumcising your own male child (if you have any). So as you can see anyone who still circumcises himself is not amiss or following any mosaic law.

Another example is the animal sacrifices we have been making references to. What was the importance of animal sacrifices? The bible declares that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins so the blood from the sacrificed animals was a form of atonement for sin. If I wanted to be 'sinless' in God's eyes I had to make animal sacrifices to appease him for a time. Now by Jesus death and resurrection the bible unequivocally declares that the necessity for such animal sacrifices was done away with. Jesus blood was better than all such blood of bulls and goats in many regards and one of which was that those who offered such sacrifices had to keep doing them regularly to cover up for sin. In the case of Jesus he did so ONCE and for all times and he not only took away the guilt for sin but he took away the nature of sin and in turn offered RIGHTEOUSNESS to those who believed in him. This summarily means that the righteous requirements for offering animal sacrifices has not only been fulfilled in Jesus and has been DONE AWAY WITH. This is why we do not need to do so again.

In the aspect of Tithing, the bible stated that there was a blessing for observing it and also a curse for disobeying. This proves that there were righteous requirements for giving tithes in the past but when Jesus came he put away the righteous requirements of the tithes but he didn't put away the act just like he didn't do same for circumcision. This means I am not righteous or a christian because I tithe, neither am I cursed if I do not. But I can identify myself with the blessings of tithing that existed before the law and were espoused during the law without negative consequences of 'falling from grace' as long as I do not see it as a righteous requirement. For this very principle to be done away with like animal sacrifices the bible would have mentioned it like it did the latter. But the bible didn't. So I see it as equally disingenuous for anyone to stamp an authority over it and claim it has been annuled without proferring a single verse to buttress such a fact. Certainly, the bible didn't say "thou shalt continue tithing" but the bible didn't say the contrary. And what is interesting is how the same bible explained in lucid terms how the animal sacrifices were not only now unnecessary but that the very act should be abrogated. The bible also made mention of other practices and gave the same verdict but concerning circumcision for e.g, there is not a single verse saying it should be stopped- not one! All the bible said is that circumcision doesn't make anyone a child of God the way it did in the past, so if you do it and believe in Jesus, fine. If you do it and do not believe in Jesus it is useless. If you don't do it and believe in Jesus, fine. If you don't do it and do not believe in Jesus you are lost and hopeless.That's the same way with tithes. If you disagree then the onus is on you to show a single NT verse that annuls the tithing. Period.

You are wise. The necessity for these confused forays into pre-Mosaic tithing is to escape the glaring differences between Mosaic tithing regime and the present 'monetary tithing'. For one, Jews tithed 22% per annum. Our self-righteous latter day Pharisees who 'thank God they are not as other men' boast of a paltry 10%.

In Pre-Mosaic offerings, we see animal sacrifices offered to God directly minus the priests' mediation. Can you imagine a crazed Paul teaching Gentiles how to personally offer lambs Abraham style reason being the Mosaic regime was annulled at Calvary and they are now 'free' to revert to Abraham by faith?

Candour:


@the bolded, pls forget all the lies. That is a later day diversion because folks have become wiser about it. Hear from the head honcho. He knows the tithe he preaches has nothing to do with Abraham but Moses

From Rhapsody of Realities



This is the true position. CEC believes a non tither is a ROBBER and you and i know where a robber will end up, don't we?

WinsomeX:


I am not a holiness preacher. I despise that term: "holiness movement"; there is no such thing in the bible. I know nothing of "isolation revelation". And I apologize for calling your statements lame excuses, though it is not time to begin enumerating times you have referred to me as a "dog" while I wisely over looked the statement.

You should have mentioned the antecedent that generated me quoting a scripture as regards the dog issue. It is also a well known fact on this forum that you have done much worse than these when you attacked Christians concerning their liberty to tithe. Atleast i know Image as the worst hit on this forum from you and your cohorts.

I consider myself a preacher of the gospel of Christ. Like Paul in Acts 20, I like to see the emphasis of my doctrine on the gospel of grace, which builds people up and gives them an inheritance. I also like to see myself as one that is orthodox: staying faithful to a true Christian tradition as Jude called us to do in his epistle and as Paul warned us to do in Galatians 1:6-9.

Until you stop criticizing on non essentials like tithing and prosperity. I don't see you as a preacher of the gospel.

In all these I seek to propagate and preserve gospel truths. As for the ministers I look up to, you would have realized them if you read my posts well. I hope you and Gombs can fish them out as you fished out my critiques the other time.

You seek to propagate your opinions really. Pls feel free to show us your mentors, more so the people you critiques here are the same people you have benefited from in your early christian walk with God.

vooks:
I find it decidedly convenient that of all pre-Mosaic practices, Christ Embassy sticks with tithing. They will not hesitate to remind you that it is an 'eternal principle' simply because it predates Moses. The reason is obvious, it is one doctrine from which they stand to immensely gain financially. How does circumcising males help their coffers? What about bloody animal sacrifices? They'd stain Oyak's Benny Hinn-esque wardrobe.

Sometimes back I debated with shdemidemi and debunked his 'speaking in an unknown tongue' is different from 'speaking in tongues' theory. He never responded. A week later, he resurfaces and aks me to define GRACE,WORKS and when GRACE was 'initiated'. He said upon answering these,he would respond to my rebuttal. I saw through his shenanigans and told him I was comfortable with whatever definition he believed in. In other words, I removed this condition to his response by AGREEING with him. He still refused to respond. So he won't educate me on GRACE and WORKS and he won't respond to me.

It is a classic strategy to kill an argument; put impossible pre-conditions to proceeding. Gombs wants to divert the debate to the Abrahamic covenant annulment. That's why for the sake of proceeding with the debate am prepared to work with whatever he thinks. With that out of the way, can he in the simplest words answer this;

How comes you don't offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

Just shut up or put up.

1. Eternal Principles. Explain what blessing a Christian receives upon circumcision

2. Paul NEVER circumcised to fulfil nothing, it was simply getting the Circumcision party off his back. He was saying, 'this guy is circumcised, can you buzz off now?'. If Paul had a modicum of reverence for circumcision as an 'eternal' principle, he would have gladly circumcised ALL or many of his gentile partners. How many did he circumcise?

3. Principles Theory again. Does/MUST the Christian realize the principle behind animal sacrifices or circumcision ONLY by offering animal sacrifices or circumcising respectively?

4. The show-me-where-in-NT-it-was-annulled argument. Show me where Freewill animal offerings were annulled.
Note the animal sacrifices abrogated were those used as a means of dealing with sin, the red heifer,Azazel and so forth. Freewill offerings had nothing to do with sin

mbaemeka:


I have a feeling you are deliberately misunderstanding Gombs. There were a couple of things that God instituted to those who served him before the law that he still included in the law for regulation. Things like Tithes, firstfruits, circumcision, and offering of animal sacrifices. These things were eternal because God expected it (since time immemorial) of all his children whose hearts were unreceptive and unconditioned to obey him as such so he imputed it into the law to 'force' them to obey him. Even at that he placed the blessings for obeying them and the accompanying curses for doing otherwise.

Many years later, God's son came to die for mankind and by so doing he nailed the righteous requirements for following the law. This means that men could be numbered as part of God's folks regardless of their obedience to the law which God didn't set it aside per se. He let someone else fulfil it and then he accredited the success of that person's obedience to those who were to become part of his folk before he cancelled it.

Now the question is this; did the law that came years after the principles of God were instituted, annul ALL the principles even if those principles were still listed in the law that was cancelled? The answer is NO. The cancellation of the law was ONLY in respect to the righteous requirements from observing it and the concomitant curses for not doing so. The law or better still some of the principles in it were not cancelled in practice. A good example is circumcision that has been thrown about by both parties. Paul never said circumcision was to be done away with. He himself circumcised some gentile converts. Paul said circumcision was cancelled as a RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENT. Meaning that, whether I am circumcised or not, I am righteous in God's eyes as long as I believe in the death and resurrection of his son. But that didn't stop your parents from circumcising you and I am very sure it didn't stop you from circumcising your own male child (if you have any). So as you can see anyone who still circumcises himself is not amiss or following any mosaic law.

Another example is the animal sacrifices we have been making references to. What was the importance of animal sacrifices? The bible declares that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins so the blood from the sacrificed animals was a form of atonement for sin. If I wanted to be 'sinless' in God's eyes I had to make animal sacrifices to appease him for a time. Now by Jesus death and resurrection the bible unequivocally declares that the necessity for such animal sacrifices was done away with. Jesus blood was better than all such blood of bulls and goats in many regards and one of which was that those who offered such sacrifices had to keep doing them regularly to cover up for sin. In the case of Jesus he did so ONCE and for all times and he not only took away the guilt for sin but he took away the nature of sin and in turn offered RIGHTEOUSNESS to those who believed in him. This summarily means that the righteous requirements for offering animal sacrifices has not only been fulfilled in Jesus and has been DONE AWAY WITH. This is why we do not need to do so again.

In the aspect of Tithing, the bible stated that there was a blessing for observing it and also a curse for disobeying. This proves that there were righteous requirements for giving tithes in the past but when Jesus came he put away the righteous requirements of the tithes but he didn't put away the act just like he didn't do same for circumcision. This means I am not righteous or a christian because I tithe, neither am I cursed if I do not. But I can identify myself with the blessings of tithing that existed before the law and were espoused during the law without negative consequences of 'falling from grace' as long as I do not see it as a righteous requirement. For this very principle to be done away with like animal sacrifices the bible would have mentioned it like it did the latter. But the bible didn't. So I see it as equally disingenuous for anyone to stamp an authority over it and claim it has been annuled without proferring a single verse to buttress such a fact. Certainly, the bible didn't say "thou shalt continue tithing" but the bible didn't say the contrary. And what is interesting is how the same bible explained in lucid terms how the animal sacrifices were not only now unnecessary but that the very act should be abrogated. The bible also made mention of other practices and gave the same verdict but concerning circumcision for e.g, there is not a single verse saying it should be stopped- not one! All the bible said is that circumcision doesn't make anyone a child of God the

mbaemeka:


I have a feeling you are deliberately misunderstanding Gombs. There were a couple of things that God instituted to those who served him before the law that he still included in the law for regulation. Things like Tithes, firstfruits, circumcision, and offering of animal sacrifices. These things were eternal because God expected it (since time immemorial) of all his children whose hearts were unreceptive and unconditioned to obey him as such so he imputed it into the law to 'force' them to obey him. Even at that he placed the blessings for obeying them and the accompanying curses for doing otherwise.

Many years later, God's son came to die for mankind and by so doing he nailed the righteous requirements for following the law. This means that men could be numbered as part of God's folks regardless of their obedience to the law which God didn't set it aside per se. He let someone else fulfil it and then he accredited the success of that person's obedience to those who were to become part of his folk before he cancelled it.

Now the question is this; did the law that came years after the principles of God were instituted, annul ALL the principles even if those principles were still listed in the law that was cancelled? The answer is NO. The cancellation of the law was ONLY in respect to the righteous requirements from observing it and the concomitant curses for not doing so. The law or better still some of the principles in it were not cancelled in practice. A good example is circumcision that has been thrown about by both parties. Paul never said circumcision was to be done away with. He himself circumcised some gentile converts. Paul said circumcision was cancelled as a RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENT. Meaning that, whether I am circumcised or not, I am righteous in God's eyes as long as I believe in the death and resurrection of his son. But that didn't stop your parents from circumcising you and I am very sure it didn't stop you from circumcising your own male child (if you have any). So as you can see anyone who still circumcises himself is not amiss or following any mosaic law.

Another example is the animal sacrifices we have been making references to. What was the importance of animal sacrifices? The bible declares that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins so the blood from the sacrificed animals was a form of atonement for sin. If I wanted to be 'sinless' in God's eyes I had to make animal sacrifices to appease him for a time. Now by Jesus death and resurrection the bible unequivocally declares that the necessity for such animal sacrifices was done away with. Jesus blood was better than all such blood of bulls and goats in many regards and one of which was that those who offered such sacrifices had to keep doing them regularly to cover up for sin. In the case of Jesus he did so ONCE and for all times and he not only took away the guilt for sin but he took away the nature of sin and in turn offered RIGHTEOUSNESS to those who believed in him. This summarily means that the righteous requirements for offering animal sacrifices has not only been fulfilled in Jesus and has been DONE AWAY WITH. This is why we do not need to do so again.

In the aspect of Tithing, the bible stated that there was a blessing for observing it and also a curse for disobeying. This proves that there were righteous requirements for giving tithes in the past but when Jesus came he put away the righteous requirements of the tithes but he didn't put away the act just like he didn't do same for circumcision. This means I am not righteous or a christian because I tithe, neither am I cursed if I do not. But I can identify myself with the blessings of tithing that existed before the law and were espoused during the law without negative consequences of 'falling from grace' as long as I do not see it as a righteous requirement. For this very principle to be done away with like animal sacrifices the bible would have mentioned it like it did the latter. But the bible didn't. So I see it as equally disingenuous for anyone to stamp an authority over it and claim it has been annuled without proferring a single verse to buttress such a fact. Certainly, the bible didn't say "thou shalt continue tithing" but the bible didn't say the contrary. And what is interesting is how the same bible explained in lucid terms how the animal sacrifices were not only now unnecessary but that the very act should be abrogated. The bible also made mention of other practices and gave the same verdict but concerning circumcision for e.g, there is not a single verse saying it should be stopped- not one! All the bible said is that circumcision doesn't make anyone a child of God the way it did in the past, so if you do it and believe in Jesus, fine. If you do it and do not believe in Jesus it is useless. If you don't do it and believe in Jesus, fine. If you don't do it and do not believe in Jesus you are lost and hopeless.That's the same way with tithes. If you disagree then the onus is on you to show a single NT verse that annuls the tithing. Period.

God bless you my brother, what i see the antithing crew do here is literally reading into text of OT in a legalistic way. Imagine the folly of the argument about circumcision and animal sacrifice. Me kuku dey look the mumu in 3D.

shdemidemi:


Just shut up or put up.

You have tasted the guy's pomposity and arrogance as if he's the embodiment of all scriptural knowledge abi? Relax man! No need to get heated up over nothing.

Mba weldone... I did not just want to give vooks these, for if he could not answer whether God revoked His covenant sealed with circumcision, after he's said all pre mosaic principles were anulled.

It's a sure sign, that these folks hardly know scripture, no wonder he keeps saying 'I feel' 'I think' etc. I did not want to give him the Animal Sacrifice part, but you already did. Guess what he now said? He asked what the blessing of circumcision is? Yet, he claims Abraham’s blessings are his.

I try to ignore him, I guess I'd put in more effort.

Resident pharmacist, what do you prescribe today ?
Use the scriptures to refute the wisdom am sharing or shut up. Demolishing arguments is spiritual warfare

shdemidemi, how is this Lord's Day taking you?

Bidam:
You have tasted the guy's pomposity and arrogance as if he's the embodiment of all scriptural knowledge abi? Relax man! No need to get heated up over nothing.

My brother,
You are insincere and you know why.

Did I miss something? Does Christ Embassy teach circumcision as a condition to Abrahamic blessings? I have never met any sect that did. That would be interesting to tear apart.

Mbaemeka has not answered the question that stupefied you. Let me repeat the question
1. Why don't you offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?
2. Is the 'eternal principle' in animal sacrifices,tithing and circumcision ONLY realizable by by doing these?

Gombs:
Mba weldone... I did not just wantbto give vooks these, for if he could not answer whether God revoked His covenant sealed with circumcision, after he's said all premmosaic principles were anulled.

It's a sure sign, that theee folks hardly know scripture,,no wonder he keeps saying 'I feel' 'I think' etc. I did not want to give him the Animal Sacrifice part, but you already did. Guess what he now said? He asked what the blessing of circumcision is? Yet, he claims Abraham’s blessings are his.

I try to ignore him, I guess I'd put in more effort.

Gombs:
Mba weldone... I did not just want to give vooks these, for if he could not answer whether God revoked His covenant sealed with circumcision, after he's said all pre mosaic principles were anulled.

It's a sure sign, that these folks hardly know scripture, no wonder he keeps saying 'I feel' 'I think' etc. I did not want to give him the Animal Sacrifice part, but you already did. Guess what he now said? He asked what the blessing of circumcision is? Yet, he claims Abraham’s blessings are his.

I try to ignore him, I guess I'd put in more effort.

You too have conveniently refuse to address the issues I raised with you here; or are you waiting for help?:

trustman:




So you have chosen on your own to use the tithing example that was before the Mosaic law to be your standard for your doing it today. [ Please give yourself a pat on the back for this ingenuity ]. 


You can be sincerely mistaken. Unless you do things God's way you wouldn't get his approval. You may think you are doing it from a pure heart but as long as it is not in line with God's way it will still get his disapproval. 

When you use a verse that has no jurisdiction over tithing to defend it what right motive or a pure heart is in that?

Remember Uzzah? Did he have the right motive and a pure heart? What was the result? 

God honors his word not sincere motive or anything else.