|Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1061630 members, 1232777 topics. Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 02:49 PM
Poll: Does the New Testament require us to tithe?Yes: 38% (28 votes)
No: 61% (44 votes)
This poll has ended
Picture Of Black Swan Feeding Goldfish: Who Says That Animals Don't Have Souls? / The Truth Your Pastor Would Not Tell You About Tithes: Tithing Is Unscriptural U / Why Compulsary Tithing Is Dangerous To Your Salvation (1) (2) (3) (4)
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 12:46pm On Sep 25, 2009|
Lets even assume you are right [which you are not] that tithing was not part of the law, how come most of your crooked pastors preach it based on law?[Malachi 3:10] How come they also twist the tithes to mean money contrary to food that is written in the scriptures? Then could you kindly explain the logic justifying modern day tithing from the one off example of Abraham and Jacob's conditional promise to tithe. Is there any instruction in the bible to replicate this act of Abraham? Was it even God that asked Abraham to give out of his war booty[which wasn't his in the first place] to melchizedek? Please i need to know on what basis this act justifes a mandatory doctrine in our churches today if not twisted/ manipulated teachings. And if we are to follow Abraham's example would that not translate to a once in a life time tithe? Or a tithe strictly from war booty as there are no directions in the bible to follow on the issue. Or in the case of Jacob's promised tithes that would imply we tithe only conditionally if God blesses us first. i.e i can promise to tithe ten per cent if God blesses me with a billion dollars , in that case i would not be liable to tithe if God blesses me with only 999 million dolloars . Anyway i know i have taught you all this before but the love of money[which the bible describes as evil] as made you refuse to accept the truth. I would like to know what the passage below means to you as it is applicable to your likes who are fond of twisting scriptures.
8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise because we have the word of the Lord,”
when your preachers have twisted it by writing lies? 9 These wise preachers will fall
into the trap of their own foolishness,
for they have rejected the word of the Lord.
Are they so wise after all?
10 I will give their wives to others
and their farms to strangers.
From the least to the greatest,
their lives are ruled by greed.
Yes, even my prophets and priests are like that.
They are all frauds.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Zikkyy(m): 5:33pm On Sep 25, 2009|
I am not a legal person so my understanding of the term "law" might not be so good. But i dont quite agree that tithing is not part of the law written by Moses. The book of the law provides rules which the Israelites are expected to comply with and it carries rewards for compliance and punishment for disobedience. Since the contents of the book of the law includes the requirements or rules relating to tithing, i dont see why you should not consider it part of the law. For me, to say it is not a law (atleast in biblical terms) means we should not consider other rules contain in the book as laws. Various terms (law, decrees, ordinance, statutes, judgments e.t.c depending on the version of the bible you read) were used to describe the content of the book but they were never seen as "patterns". Agreed that the act of tithing was in place before the mosaic law, the mosaic law specifies a new way of practice (i.e. to be performed at the one place of worship; compulsory vs act of freewill; can be converted to cash if the one place of worship is too far; to be performed at specified time e.t.c.). It is also quite possible that tithing was being practice by non israelites (as a way of life) in the original (and varying) forms even after the mosaic law was issued, but we dont have good details of the original form of practice. What was being practice by the israelites up to the time of Jesus was in accordance with the mosaic law. The tithing practice of modern day christians is also in accordance with the mosaic law.
I am quite sure that included in the Nigeria constitution today are activities that you would call a practice of our fore-fathers, but that does not mean they are not laws to which we should adhere to in modern day living. I think the fact the practice of tithing being included in the law book makes it one.
You have to work harder to convince me otherwise.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 6:26pm On Sep 25, 2009|
Zikkyy:You can be rest assured that my brother tonye-t would work harder to convince you, after all it is evident that his livelihood depends on tithes. Abi you want him to starve?
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Tonye-t(m): 10:41am On Sep 26, 2009|
@ KunleOshod my brother, men you are really funny , i aint no pastor abeg, its only my duty to make peeps see the truth here that what you people say has been abolished is not really true afterall, and it takes someone who studies the scriptures to rightly divide this word of truth (2tim.)
And again i dont need to work harder to convince you, the bible will, as i have been showing you guys so far
@zikkyy nice to meet you ,Zikkyy i just read you sentences and will love to reaffirm some opinions to you as it appears you have a good bearing in the things of the scriptures although you need some clarity
Now to the issue at hand
1.KunleOshod i read what you said about the titheing of abraham and dat of the israelites, now i ask you, does the topic of this thread say that "the mosaic titheing is still relevant" i guess not, rather it said titheing as a practise still holds, isnt it, now i have explained here b4 that when the bible said Abraham gave a tithe of all, now doenst that mean tithe of gold, silver, diamond, garments, raiment, and all other booties? now what will you compare with all this booties with what we have in our own time, you are crying foul for peeps who give money, i wonder how much you'll cry if they give their all ,. Take circumcision for example, when Abraham did his, was it not with a sharp stone, now i refer you to read the circumcision that was practised in Jesus' days, it was not the same as Abraham's time atleast the instruments differed, yet when they talked about circumcision in the bible, they still relate it back to the circumcision of Abraham's time. Now the Qal (original titheing practise) of Abraham's time was A TENTH OF ALL, as far as am concerned TITHEING OF TODAY IS STILL RELATED regardless of whether its the QAL or TERUMUOT, because the former and both the later still holds, the book of romans will explain better
2. Now to you zikkyy, please when you read Matt.23:23, did that verse looked/sounded/seemed/acted/voiced like Jesus said titheing should not be practised again, just this question for you, prolly your answer may even end this topic who knows
Matt.23:23 - "Jesus said, Practise mercy, practise justice, practise faith and also do not neglect to pracitise tithe (MATT.23:23 -Hebrew-English paraphrased bible)
PLS WHAT DID JESUS SAY HERE AND DOES IT SOUND LIKE TITIHEING SHOULD BE ABOLISHED, BE IT QAL OR TERUMUOT?
God bless you
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by ttalks(m): 6:57pm On Sep 26, 2009|
it seems you are bent on reading a lot of things which i (and probably others )say in an upside down manner.
I'll draw your attention to this quote of urs:
Ttalks, from your reply to my point, i now know that neither you nor KunleOshod have any point to prove, because if you have been sincere to yourselves, you will agree that it was you and your likes that blantly criticised the law as abolished, now you come back here to say you never did such in the first place is purely immature say a thing and stand by it, do you understand?
I never denied saying the law was abolished. I still say it is because the bible says so. I only said it was not destroyed;but set aside/abolished.
Your problem is u assume (from your comments so far) that to abolish something is the same as destroying it. Here's some info for u below:
Abolish: to put an end to (a custom,law etc)
eg. We must abolish the death penalty.
1. Do away with, cause the destruction or undoing of
2. Destroy completely; damage irreparably
They're similar but not exactly the same. the context in which they are used would determine their meaning.
The former deals with a mere ending of a thing while the latter deals with the complete annihilation and destruction of a thing.(remember - context is important)
Another quote of urs:
Now i asked again and someone said a very funny thing that gat me laffing my ribs out, what?now let me stoop low to your understanding of the law in itself) I quoted from Matt.23:23 - That if you say titheing is part of the law, then you should also say that JUSTICE, MERCY AND FAITHFULNESS are part of the law, because Jesus called them law there , and then someone either youself or your crew , said The disciples only chose to practise justice, mercy and faith and leave titheing, now i ask, who is more rather confused, how can the disciples practise one and leave the other, wont they be guilty of the other? *shakes head* believe me you guys are simply pathetic. Again, even in Jesus' comment, the bible clearly stated that JESUS CRITICIZED THE PHARISEES AND NEVER CRITICIZED TITHE, because THE TITHE THEY GAVE WAS DONE HYPOCRITICALLY. Jesus said, Practise mercy, practise justice, practise faith and also do not neglect to pracitise tithe (MATT.23:23 -Hebrew-English paraphrased bible)
Tonye, we have never ever established that Jesus Critisized the tithe or any aspect of the law.Never!
Don't read false meanings into what we say.
And for the umpteenth time, Jesus was speaking under the dispensation of the law; so he expected that everybody under the law as at then should "practice justice mercy and faith and not leave the other(tithe) undone." There are things Christ preached under the dispensation of the law that were in regard to the existing law and some which were in regard to the new covenant.
Christ was expecting everybody who was alive under that dispensation of the law then to practice what the law stated.
But that period or dispensation has passed and a new one has begun which does not require the practice of tithes. This new period brought about the end of the old period and its requirements(all of them); and then brought about its own requirements(which reflect some aspects of the abolished period - justice,mercy and faith; which aren't explicitly stated but are shown more ways than none in different aspects of the requirements of the new covenant).
And before I forget, I would like u to answer the question I threw earlier which Olaadegbu evaded by throwing another question at me:
There is one thing i haven't really gotten from those who feel tithes still ought to be paid; and I hope i get it now:
I need a straight forward and to the point answer; based on all your conclusions about tithing.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Zikkyy(m): 1:18am On Sep 27, 2009|
Nice to meet you too.
To answer your question, i would say Jesus was in support of the practice of tithing (as stipulated in the book of the Law).
But as earlier stated by the "anti-tithers" i.e. ttalks, kunleoshob and others (please pardon me), Jesus lived under the law.
Galatians 4; 4-5 (4: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5: To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.)
The issue of whether the law was done away with after the death of Christ is quite debatable. Paul's in his letters to the Romans & Galatians stated that we are put right with God (saved) not by adherence to the Law but through faith in Christ. i.e. we are set free from the power of sin and death.
Galatians 2; 16 (Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.)
Galatians 3;19 (19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator)
Galatians 3; 23-25 (23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.)
Does this mean that compliance with the law is no longer required? As a means of obtaining salvation, it appears so. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it has been done away with, i believe it is still necessary for good christian living (atleast some part of it) and the law has been summed up in one word, "Love"
Galatians 5: 14 (14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Romans 13: 8-10 (8(A) Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for(B) the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9For the commandments,(C) "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this wordD) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore(E) love is the fulfilling of the law.)
As christians i believe we are not obligated to adhere to the requirement of the law. This can also be infered from the decision taken by the Apostles in Acts 15 when faced with the issue of Gentiles (i believe we christians are not jews) being circumcised and made to obey the law. The Apostles guided by the Holy Spirit agreed on some necessary rules that should be followed by the gentiles. (See Acts 15 for this.). They were not required to follow the law as this will not lead them to being put right with God.
By showing love to our neighbour we would have fulfilled the law of tithing. i.e. we would not neglect the needy widows, orphans, even levites if they can be found (to the best of each persons ability). That brings me to the issue of modern day priests/pastors/G.Os taking the position of Levites in the church (thats the impression i get anytime the issue of tithing comes up). The Israelites were quite strict on this as there must be proof to confirm a levite ancestry before he can qualify as a priest.
Nehemiah 7:63-64 (63Also, of the priests: the sons of Hobaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai (who had taken a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by their name). 64These sought their registration among those enrolled in the genealogies, but it was not found there, so they were excluded from the priesthood as unclean. 65(A) The(B) governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food until a priest with Urim and Thummim should arise.)
Tonye-t my understanding of your post is that tithing in general (& not tithing under mosaic law) is still relevant. Maybe so. But we do not have good details of other form of tithing is practiced. Modern day practice makes reference to mosaic law. Even if we do agree that tithing under mosaic law is still relevant, is the modern day practice in accordance with law? No.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:57am On Sep 27, 2009|
Tithes and Offerings
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it" (Malachi 3:10).
Today there is much talk of financial security. The Biblical formula in our text, given to Israel, but applied to all, begins with a scathing indictment. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings" (v.. What a terrible thing, to rob God. The result of their thievery, in God's eyes: "Ye are cursed with a curse" (v.9), such that their financial state was much worse than it would have been had they been obedient. This teaching and promise has not been rescinded (Luke 6:38; I Corinthians 16:2; etc.).
God's charge to us as given in our text is in three steps. First, we are told to obey; i.e., "bring ye." This cannot be considered an option. Secondly, God proposes a test. "Prove me," He says, give and see if He lives up to His promises. Thirdly, trust His promise to meet our needs.
Note that His promise is also threefold. It abundantly covers present needs, for He promises to "pour you out a blessing" unmeasurable in quality or quantity. Likewise it covers the threat of future loss. "And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field" (v.11). Most precious is His promise to reward obedience and trust with a special relationship: "All nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land" (v.12).
Thus we see that with less than 100% of our income at our disposal, we will have greater financial security than if we had kept it all to ourselves, thereby robbing God. JDM
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by chukwudi44: 3:36pm On Sep 27, 2009|
Oladegbu u are sick
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Zikkyy(m): 4:10pm On Sep 27, 2009|
It quite obvious that it requires the grace of God for one to be freed from bondage, especially one that is self imposed. I have nothing much to say here. I will just add my thoughts on what good christian living is all about (regarding the act of giving)
As a christian, one is required to meet the need of his/her neighbor without thought of reward. The act of christian giving is not a business. Giving should be done because it pleases you (gladdens your heart); because it gives joy to the recipient; because it is the right (Godly) thing to do; because it pleases God anytime you give.
Giving in church in whatever form with the expectation that you will be swept away with a flood of blessing as you step outside the church premises (as windows of heaven will be opened) is not what christ preached. Giving should not be a business of give and take (this is in-sincerity on our part and is against what the Apostles preached). This is what the ultimate commandment is all about; Love God & love your neighbor as yourself. By doing this the need of those that lacks will continue to be satisfied from the surplus of those that have. Indirectly we have paid our tithe but not be a pre-determined percentage. We are Christians, and not jews and as a resulted not bounded by the law. The act of Christian giving has been twisted because of the issue of financial security.
Sadly only those live under the curse get cursed for non-compliance.
But if you do take a tenth of your earnings and drop in the storehouse (church coffers) that there will be meat (raw cash) in Gods house (Church bank account), and the windows heavens pour out blessings in abundance, its all good and i will always rejoice with you (please dont hesitate to invite me when you party).
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 5:27pm On Sep 27, 2009|
Thanx for your sincere thoughts on the subject. Very precise and incisive. Also let us continue to pray for our brethren who are under this curse of the tithing law, they desperately need deliverance.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by ttalks(m): 6:01pm On Sep 27, 2009|
The verse(s) u quoted above were addressed specifically to the people of Israel within the old covenant. It was strictly meant for them and them alone.
It is not applied to all as u indicate above.
The verses below show that the covenant of old was for the Israelites alone and had nothing to do with the rest of the world:
(11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
(12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
It had nothing to do with the rest of the world then; it definitely has nothing to do with us today.
Therefore,all the charges there were strictly to those it was intended for; the israelites under the old covenant.
Based on the above, the only people who had opportunity to rob God were those who were instructed to tithe and do offerings under the old covenant. They could by with holding their tithes and offerings.
people who were never asked to or expected to tithe can not rob God when they use their possessions as they please.
Please learn to read verses of the bible within the context in which they are used and not based on some form of imagined spiritual connotation.
And It is somewhat criminal to imply wrong meanings to the verses u gave as backup for your opinions on tithes such as Luke 6:38 and 1 Corinthians 16:2.
(38) Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Reading the above verse in the context in which it was presented, can u honestly say that it was talking about giving tithes or offerings?
That verse was talking about the attitude we as Christians should have towards one another/towards others.
It is saying that we should have an attitude of giving to others who had need of varying kinds;not stricly financial,but in every way possible.
And it is our attitude of giving towards the need of others that would determine the response of others towards our own needs should they arise.
This is not about giving to God,but unto our fellow neighbors here and there as they have need.
(1) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
(3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
I put 1 Corinthians 16:2 in it's proper context so as to explain it.
Again, it was all about meeting the needs of those that had need;meeting the needs of fellow Christians who had various kind of material needs.
As verse one indicated some Christians had need, so a general instruction was made to the people to give of what they had towards meeting the needs of those Christians.A collection was being made at the first day of every week till Paul would get to them.
all these were done in this manner so as to prevent a haphazard collection of offerings(which included food,drinks,clothing,money,etc.) when Paul came around.
After Paul gathered their collections,he would go with them to those who needed them and give unto them;bringing to an end the collections being made for that purpose.
What the passage is teaching is simply this:
When needs arise, the gathering of brethren can decide to make collections over a period of time according to the ability of the people to meet those needs.
All these do not apply to Christians.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by babaearly(m): 6:16pm On Sep 27, 2009|
Oladegbu, be open minded, you should know the difference btw the old and new covenants.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by chukwudi44: 3:13pm On Sep 29, 2009|
oladeegbu is a false prophet ,he knows the truth ,but only want to defraud innocentt people of their hard earned money
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Abuzola(m): 3:30pm On Sep 29, 2009|
Quran 004.163 We have sent thee (O muhammad) inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: We sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.
004.164 Of some Messengers We have already told thee the story; of others we have not-- and to Moses God spoke direct--
004.165 Messengers who gave good news as well as warning, that mankind, after (the coming) of the Messengers, should have no plea against God: For God is Exalted in Power, Wise.
004.166 But God beareth witness that what He hath sent unto thee He hath sent from His (own) knowledge, and the angels bear witness: But enough is God for a witness.
004.167 Those who reject Faith and keep off (men) from the way of God, have verily strayed far, far away from the Path.
004.168 Those who reject Faith and do wrong,- God will not forgive them nor guide them to any way-
004.169 Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever. And this to God is easy.
004.170 O mankind! The Messenger hath come to you in truth from God: believe in him: It is best for you. But if ye reject Faith, to God belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And God is All-Knowing, All-wise.
004.171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is One God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.
004.172 Christ disdaineth nor to serve and worship God, nor do the angels, those nearest (to God): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant-- He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 4:09pm On Sep 29, 2009|
Dem swear for you
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Abuzola(m): 4:19pm On Sep 29, 2009|
[b]Burn The Daughter!
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the LovePeddler, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)
A priest's daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.
How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"?
(See also Genesis 38:24)
Cut Off Her Hand!
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
A wife would naturally wish to come to the aid of her husband in any way she could if he desperately struggled with an opponent, but the Hebrew law specifically forbade a wife to help her husband in distress if that support consisted of her grabbing the enemy's Cores in an effort to stifle his onslaught. The penalty? Amputation of the hand that fondled the Cores!
Only in an overly obsessive male dominated culture could men create such atrocious laws. As such, the joystick ranked sacrosanct in the minds of men (as it still stands today). If a male lost his joystick for any reason, he would lose the right to enter a congregation of God. (See Deuteronomy 23:1)
Female Births Get Penalty
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
A woman who gives birth to a child must undergo a purification ritual lest her "uncleanness" contaminate others. This not only entails her isolation, but also payments to priests for the ritual acts. Thus the male dominators had even made birth dirty.
Notice here that if a woman bears a female child, her isolation must last twice as long as that if she gives birth to a male child!
(See also Psalms 51:3-5)
"The Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."
--Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
The Bible's decree of male supremacy has kept woman inferior to men for centuries. For the religious, it comes as a sad fact that a human must have a joystick to receive any respect or power within the Church.
All woman should realize that such phrases in the Bible has justified for many Christian men, not only their supremacy but a reason to sexually abuse women.
(See also I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19)
Jesus Will Kill Children
"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)
If anyone thinks Jesus represents only a peaceful loving soul, then think again. For an act of adultery, Jesus would kill innocent children for the adultery of others; hardly fair justice, love, or the concern for human beings.
Some apologists claim that "children" refers to the followers of a cult of Jezebel and not to children birthed from Jezebel. However, if this proved the case, the situation would appear even more horrific, for a cult of believers could number in the dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more. The deaths of these multitude of cult believers (which would include children within its membership) would only make the moralistic problem far more atrocious.
"It's interesting to speculate how it developed that in two of the most anti-feminist institutions, the church and the law court, the men are wearing the dresses."
Kill The Witches!
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20)
These verses attest to the power of belief as they led to the slaughter of thousands of defenseless people throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Understand that these verses not only authorize the executions but they explicitly command them.
Verse 18 justified the burning of women in Europe judged as witches. In early America, the Salem witch trials resulted in the deaths of women and men.
Verse 19 refers to bestiality, a sin considered worthy of death. Christians used verse 20 to justify religious wars, Crusades and the slaughter of unbelievers throughout Europe. And the condemnation of heretics still goes on.
molestation My Daughter
"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)
Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that intimate abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.
Verse 25 describes the hours long gang molestation of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the Molested girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.
Silence The Woman!
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
"Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being. For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female."
--Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex 1949
(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)
Stone The Woman!
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)
"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)
(Read also Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
The discovery of a bride lying with another man can yield disastrous results.
If the wife's parents can produce tokens of the damsel's virginity and spread the cloth before the elders of the city, the husband has to pay the bride's father one hundred silver shekels and he may not send his wife back to her parents as long as she lives. But if the bride's virginity does not satisfy the requirements, the husband can get rid of her by letting the men of the city stone her to death.
From a practical level, these designed laws regulating women's virginity protected economic transactions between men rather than for the sake of morality. (See Virgin's Worth below)
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Perhaps the most famous mistranslation of the Bible, the word virgin here comes from a mistranslated Greek word for virgin.
The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.
Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.
Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)
Apparently either God makes errors or the Bible does not come from god, but rather from fallible men.
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
The belief some get about the Biblical law leads them to think that it represented a great advancement in morality. However, if we look at this law in the social and economic context, it becomes evident that it did not come from any moral ground, but rather to protect men's property rights of their wives and daughters.
This law says that since an unmarried girl, a non-virgin, no longer serves as an economically valuable asset, her father must receive compensation. As for the legal requirement of the man that caused the economic problem, his marriage in that society gave him practically unlimited power over their wives. Such forced marriage can hardly serve as a concern for the poor girl's welfare.
Wives, Submit Yourselves!
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
These words of Paul describe another instance for the calling of the submission of women to their husbands. Note that the all inclusive "everything" could allow husbands to submit their wives to anything, including molestation, beatings, slavery, etc.
(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Col. 3:18-19.)
Women Shall Not Speak
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
If one ever wishes to find an explanation of woman's inferiority to men, one only has to look in the Bible. Paul makes clear and delineates the importance of woman recognizing her place, "ad nauseam."
(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)
"The bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire, Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up."
--Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)
Not only does the Woman get blamed for the Fall, but God decides to multiply her sorrow, plus, she must submit to her husband like a slave.
Religionists have used this verse as justification and "reason" for the pain and punishment (sin) of childbirth and the sin of mankind. And to this day many Christians, Jews and Islamics place women lower then men in the ranking of Godly order. If ever there existed a more cruel justification against women, it could not have done as much damage as from belief in Genesis 3:16. Because of the belief in the Fall, countless Christians have branded the entire human race as depraved.
Before the advent of male dominated religions, cultures around the world respected women and worshipped goddesses. The Old Testament records the brutal slaughter of surrounding cultures and slowly throughout the centuries, the goddess religions faded away in place of the belief-system of a jealous, scatological, male war god.
"Christianity teaches that the human race is depraved, fallen, and sinful."
--D. James Kennedy (Why I Believe, World Publishing, 1980)
Rip Up Pregnant Women
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)
Throughout the Bible, God smites those who do not believe in him or those who do not follow his commands. Here we have the grotesque description of infants dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped up. Whatever rebellious nature an infant's father or mother may have had, it bears no justice to an innocent child or to an unborn fetus who could not possibly have rebelled against God, much less understood him.
Anyone who claims to love such a God, must accept infanticide as one of God's ugly revenges.
(See also Psalms 137:9)[/b]
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Tonye-t(m): 5:48pm On Sep 29, 2009|
so whatelse are we still arguing about, words dont lie
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Tonye-t(m): 5:53pm On Sep 29, 2009|
I will be back 2mrw!
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 2:57pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Tonye-t:What we are arguing about is that most pastors preach tithing based on the mosaic law as compulsary which is contrary to the teachings and gospel of christianity. That aside the type of tithes being preached today has no biblical basis as it is derived from twisted scriptures. it is also selfishly applyed as the widows, orphans and the poor don't get a kobo from the collections. The abrahamic/Jacob's tithes which you also trying to force into the equation also as no relevance as those examples did not carry any stipulations to be used as doctrines and they are not relevant to christianity. Infact they were voluntary offerings contrary to the manipulative spirit behind the tithes doctrine.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Tonye-t(m): 3:11pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Should that be an issue, "JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS ABUSED DOESNT MEAN ITS BAD IN ITSELF" the pastors and fake MOGs who do so (twisting scriptures) have a case to answer before God, you just go ahead and do what Christ instructs us to in Matt.23:23 ok? God bless you
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 3:17pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Tonye-t:christ wasn't instructing christians in matthew 23:23 he was addressing pharisees who were under the law as we are not under the law it is no business of ours. Also not that the tithes in that passage was herbs, mint and cummin and not money from income as our mordern day crooks have twisted it to mean.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Gentle me: 3:38pm On Sep 30, 2009|
KunleOshod you again
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Tonye-t(m): 3:45pm On Sep 30, 2009|
KunleOshod, you see, dis is where i always have issues or occasions to laff at you
1. Do you mean to tell me that, because Paul wrote/spoke to the Corinthian xtians his letters or admonitions didnt relate to the nigerian Xtians, because he spoke directly to the corinthians, or what about the ephesians and so on
2. Do you also mean to tell me that all the things Jesus wrote bfore his death where made irrelevant after his death, since you said "his death made away with all other things b4 his death
Brother na wa for you o
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 4:17pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Stop trying to be smart I am quite certain you no we are not under the jewish law and the fact that some crooked preachers borrow favourable parts from it just becos it is in the bible does not make it right. Jesus christ was clearly speaking according to the law which is not relevant to us. Your example of the church at corinth is not only mis-leading but totally irrelevant and dishonest cos christians are christians be it in Nigeria or Malaysia. I am still wondering why you pro-thiters choose to ignore the clear directives annulling tithing in hebrews 7:12&18
Do you have problems with reading biblical truths
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by fyneguy: 4:28pm On Sep 30, 2009|
You are wasting your time trying to explain spiritual things to someone who's spiritually dead.
Read through his threads and see how he keeps twisting the scriptures, putting his interpretations in parenthesis while quoting scriptures.
I used to keep silent over his devilish and disjointed lifting and interpretation of scriptures but I have sworn to take him up henceforth.
I won't allow this demon-possessed man, whose baptist background has blinded, to continue to mislead people.
I also noticed some inconsistencies in his submissions.
If you checked some of his threads, he said pastors were not supposed to benefit directly or indirectly from the work of the ministry but when you pointed out Paul's statements as per the rights of those working for God, he said ''nobody says pastors shouldnt receive gifts, but it should be out of freewill''
His shallow knowledge and misunderstanding of the scriptures leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Today, I posted some scriptures in one of his unedifying threads, for him to explain. Sensing the verses would expose him as a ''False Prophet'' ( ), he resorted to his usually arrogant and unintelligible ramblings.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by ttalks(m): 4:32pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Hmmm, I smell a rat here.
This definitely wasn't what Gentle me wrote before,
This is definitely what Gentle Me wrote before (although it has been edited somewhat ).
Tonye - t, are u the same person as Gentle me? Do you need a second Id to show support for ur theories?
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 4:41pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Thanx for exposing the Joker. Imagine creating a new I.D to promote falsehood
You are more than welcome to take me on and I can assure you that you would only end up embarassing yourself and your criminally motivated shallow minded pastor who constantly feeds you with sewage.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Tonye-t(m): 5:04pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Are you trying to accuse me?, if i was same as gentle me, the best you wouldhave done was to quote the comment and atleast it would have had same format as Tonye's own with Gentle me's Id
Its so simple a logic, false accusation is a crime you know?
well to KunleOshod,
do you also wish to say that i am the same as FYNEGUY, wouldnt that mean stupidity and irresponsible from me to pose with 3ids just to claim a point, the bible is clear and i dont need to try to assist it, as was the case of Urriah. HMMMM, well i take that spit on the face. no problems God dey!
Maybe you guys do it, it has never crossed my mind for once, when i dont even have time for my own id in the first place
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:07pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Why must you view it that way? I don't view it that way, and neither does God. Its a matter of principle. God has called unto Him those who are willing to make a sacrifice. You dare not view the principle of tithing as a Mosaic law when you know that it preceded Moses.
Must anyone argue that because the Hebrew people observed marriage that it is Mosaic? Moses forbad adultury through the law, yet Christians still observe such a law. Don't you?
This is the kind of confusion that people display who have no proper understanding of God's will. You all downplay God's law as if its some contagious disease or something, yet you all live out those lawful requirements, at least some aspects of it in your daily life.
If you're going to base your argument on what Christ taught, then you must accept that He practised the requirements of the law, and taught it.
In fact it was commonly believed by the leaders in His time that He wanted to destroy the law, but Christ simply said that He came to fulfill it, or execute it. He came to show its true meaning and purpose.
Hence those relevant parts of the law are still binding, and by relevant I mean those practical aspects, and that is why Christ nor His apostles never taught about an abolishing of tithing. They didn't have to.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by KunleOshob(m): 5:16pm On Sep 30, 2009|
On the contrary they abolished tithing read hebrews7:5-19.on the issue of law, the ceremonil laws[which includes tithes] is what was done away with. The moral ones have been written in out hearts which includes adultery you mentioned.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:18pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Show us where tithing was mentioned? Besides, tithing was never a law of ceremony.
|Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by chukwudi44: 5:23pm On Sep 30, 2009|
Why must you view it that way? I don't view it that way, and neither does God. Its a matter of principle. God has called unto Him those who are willing to make a sacrifice. You dare not view the principle of tithing as a Mosaic law when you know that it preceded Moses.
my man stop blabbing ,the mere fact at the apostles never practised tithing show that it is not relevent,The apostles commented on marriage and other parts of the mosaic law that were incorporated into the new covenant.
There is no where in the epistles of the apostles that they commanded tithing or anything in the bible to show they practised it.Rather church collections were voluntary and even at that were used in taking care of the poor.
Paul for instance earned his living from building tenths and not from tithe ,in his epistle to the thesalonians he boasted ,that he had never received anythin wihout payin for it,he said he was setting an example for us to follow.
why on earth don't toay's pastors want to follow his example ?
Tithing was never practised for thr fist 500 years of christianity until it's introduction at the council of macon in 580 CE
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health