debosky:

Not at all - all I'm doing is exposing Ola's selective application of 'all scriptures are divinely inspired' - why abide by Malachi tithe+curse ostensibly for maintenance of the priesthood/support of the ministry and ignore wave offerings and heave offerings?

Why pick-and-choose and not apply all? Is the Malachi scripture more inspired than the one about fabrics?

Image123:
okay good.
He's answered you i think.

debosky:

No he didn't really - he is doing the usual duplicitous talking out of both sides of his mouth.

If Jesus fulfilled all the 'ceremonial' (I didn't see that term in my own bible by the way) law then how can you use a Malachi which refers to a 'ceremonial' storehouse/temple?

The same temple Jesus tore the veil in two is the one Malachi is based on and is the same 'house' that is spoken of. If my body is now the temple (i.e. the house) why is Ola not paying his tithe to me?

Pick-and-chooseism of the highest order.

Image123:

Olaaaaaaaa, your grammar wan wound me oh, lol.
Debo, are you implying that those scriptures are not divinely inspired?

Image123:

The ceremony laws were observed FOR justification, to be clean or holy. Today, Jesus does that. If anyone's going to observe any such laws, it's not for justification as that would be redundant. It's like using the abacus machine today. There's something better than the abacus. Tithes is not or should not be for justification.

OLAADEGBU:

No mind dem.

debosky:

No he didn't really - he is doing the usual duplicitous talking out of both sides of his mouth.

If Jesus fulfilled all the 'ceremonial' (I didn't see that term in my own bible by the way) law then how can you use a Malachi which refers to a 'ceremonial' storehouse/temple?

The same temple Jesus tore the veil in two is the one Malachi is based on and is the same 'house' that is spoken of. If my body is now the temple (i.e. the house) why is Ola not paying his tithe to me?

Pick-and-chooseism of the highest order.

Image123:

The ceremony laws were observed FOR justification, to be clean or holy. Today, Jesus does that. If anyone's going to observe any such laws, it's not for justification as that would be redundant. It's like using the abacus machine today. There's something better than the abacus. Tithes is not or should not be for justification.

christemmbassey: i won't be suprised if your wife divorse you for adultery.

DrummaBoy:

Oyakhilomeism...

or to "Oyakhilome" him...

or he is in danger of experiencing "Oyakhilomeing"

O Lord, save us from "Oyakhiloment"

christemmbassey: he needs our prayer sir

DrummaBoy:

Oyakhilomeism...

or to "Oyakhilome" him...

or he is in danger of experiencing "Oyakhilomeing"

O Lord, save us from "Oyakhiloment"

christemmbassey:

i won't be suprised if your wife divorse you for adultery.

DrummaBoy:

Oyakhilome needs a lot more than prayers... he need help.

He needs to be born again.

debosky:

What's with the wife references here?

debosky:

This one na your own grammar you dey blow - Ola follows the 'principle' of Malachi, therefore he is following the 'principle' of justification through ceremony laws as you cannot detach Malachi and the temple - it is no different from wave and heave offerings.

If we follow the 'principle' of Malachi why can we not follow the 'principle' of heave offering and wave offering? Abi those 'principles' are not worth following? Aren't 'ALL SCRIPTURE' useful for doctrine or you sef don dey practice pick-and-chooseism'?

debosky: To learn from - not to repeat/copy senselessly.

The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness therefore because they did it I must go and spend 40 years in the wilderness so I can 'learn from it'.

If you follow the 'principle' of Malachi (doing what the law commands) but ignore the 'principle' of wave and heave offering, you have broken all the 'principles'. Geddit?

James 2:10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

Get it into your head.

debosky:

To learn from - not to repeat/copy senselessly.

The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness therefore because they did it I must go and spend 40 years in the wilderness so I can 'learn from it'.

If you follow the 'principle' of Malachi (doing what the law commands) but ignore the 'principle' of wave and heave offering, you have broken all the 'principles'. Geddit?

James 2:10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

Get it into your head.

debosky: To learn from - not to repeat/copy senselessly.
The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness therefore because they did it I must go and spend 40 years in the wilderness so I can 'learn from it'.
If you follow the 'principle' of Malachi (doing what the law commands) but ignore the 'principle' of wave and heave offering, you have broken all the 'principles'. Geddit?
James 2:10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.
Get it into your head.

OLAADEGBU:

You don't have to be discursive. I am not really surprised that you and your blind followers cannot discern how the OT applies to Christians is this day and age.

debosky:

I have no followers - you are clearly in need of more than a thesaurus as your glib usage of 'principles' indicates you lack a thorough understanding of what you're peddling nor any comprehension of your error-riddled position.

To obtusely parrot that the OT was inspired (when inspiration was never in question) is instructive of your deficiencies.

Written for Our Learning

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4).

Let no modern Christian ever think that he can ignore the Old Testament and base all his faith and practice on just the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, as vital as they are. Even the apostle Paul, who wrote more of the New Testament than anyone else, depended heavily on the Old Testament Scriptures for his exposition of the New Testament doctrines he had received "by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:12).

For example, in the longest and most doctrinal of all his epistles--that is, Romans--he actually quoted from the Old Testament no less than sixty times, even though the epistle had been specifically addressed to Gentiles (Romans 11:13).

In his letter to the Gentiles at Corinth, after an extensive discussion of the Old Testament account of the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness, he said: "Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Corinthians 10:11).

In this passage, the word translated "examples" is the Greek tupos, from which we derive our word "types." Thus the experiences of the Israelites were actually revealed by God to be "types" of Christ and our relation to Him. Therefore, in addition to the many explicit prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament, many other Scriptures can be profitably expounded as "types" of Christ. Indeed, in all the Old Testament Scriptures, as Christ Himself taught, are "things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). HMM

For more . . . .

OLAADEGBU:

You don't have to spend the rest of your life being a poltroon. You can avail yourself of the use of your thesaurus and the Bible to understand the use of OT principles in Christianity (If you claim to be one). Let me spoon feed you with a copy and paste article since you are hard of learning.

debosky:

This one na your own grammar you dey blow - Ola follows the 'principle' of Malachi, therefore he is following the 'principle' of justification through ceremony laws as you cannot detach Malachi and the temple - it is no different from wave and heave offerings.

If we follow the 'principle' of Malachi why can we not follow the 'principle' of heave offering and wave offering? Abi those 'principles' are not worth following? Aren't 'ALL SCRIPTURE' useful for doctrine or you sef don dey practice pick-and-chooseism'?

DrummaBoy:

Oyakhilomeism...

or to "Oyakhilome" him...

or he is in danger of experiencing "Oyakhilomeing"

O Lord, save us from "Oyakhiloment"

debosky: To learn from - not to repeat/copy senselessly.

The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness therefore because they did it I must go and spend 40 years in the wilderness so I can 'learn from it'.

If you follow the 'principle' of Malachi (doing what the law commands) but ignore the 'principle' of wave and heave offering, you have broken all the 'principles'. Geddit?

James 2:10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

Get it into your head.

Image123:

Tithing is not SENSELESS copying or repetition. BTW, any 2 or 3 things you learn from the Israelites 40years in the wilderness?
You need to understand that James and scriptures generally is talking in context of being born again/justified/pleasing acceptable to God. The route to being acceptable to God has changed. If one wants to follow the old testament route, then one has to follow it thoroughly which BTW is impossible(says the Bible). Nothing wrong with good works(tithing is one), but if you want to use good works route to be justified or seen as righteous before God, you have to observe every law without missing it(which i say again is impossible). Jesus told the people of His time that none of them was keeping the law. Paul said all have sinned and there is none good, not one etc. That route is impossible. The new testament route is faith in Jesus. You will continue to miss it and be confused if you don't understand this foundational truth, whoever YOU are. Get that into your spirit.

debosky:

Sir, I have the foundational truth which is why no amount of 'Malachi principle' can confuse me.

My point is very much established and wasn't against tithing in its basic form - 10%. However if one wants to convert a specific commandment in Malachi specific to a temple and call it a 'principle' then that is plain copying to me.

I haven't spoken about justification at all here so you should be able to deduce that it isn't the bone of contention here. No point to repeat what is not being contested.

Is wearing single fabric clothes/staying out to the temple during monthly flow also 'good works'? After all they are in the OT for our 'learning'.

Image123:
i'm not talking about THE foundational truth, which maybe is Jesus Christ, or faith in Him(to you i guess). i'm talking about a foundational truth in understanding the Bible as a whole.
When you ask why Olaa is not obeying this or that commandment, it has to be explained why. The explanation again being the context of the commandment. Is a particular Bible commandment good? Yes, the law is good, and holy. Is there something better than that commandment available in the same Bible? What is the aim of the commandment? Is it a sin to obey the commandment? Is it wrong to obey the commandment. These are some factors you consider.
If you keep insisting that Olaa keeps wave and heave offering, else he has broken all the 'principles'. You are talking about justification.
Staying out of the temple during monthly flow was a purification thing for instance. It determined if the person was clean or unclean. In the new testament, we both know what determines being clean or unclean.

debosky:

You do not understand my simple point - Ola is picking and choosing what verses he converts into 'principles' - can you give me one good reason why tithing as described in Malachi under the law is any different from wave and heave offering? Why is tithing of Malachi more 'deserving' of being a principle than wave and heave offering?

If being 'good' is the only requirement for being a principle, what is 'bad' about wearing single material fabric or staying out of the temple during monthly flow provided you're not doing it for 'justification'?

If you simply said it is good to do x and y, that is different from saying it's a principle. If you can't see that distinction then don't bother - you don't understand where I'm coming from.