Image123:

He he he he, see live delusion. I parseive Nigeria' football score is taking its toll on you. Enjoy

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

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

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

Image123:

He he he he, see live delusion. I parseive Nigeria' football score is taking its toll on you. Enjoy

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

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

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

mbaemeka:


Joel 2 like Malachi 3 is far more reaching than farm produce. On the surface it appears so, but they are allegorical in import of something spiritual. The locusts eating through their farm products was an illustration of God's judgment. The type of Judgement that Egypt faced in Moses day.

Those prophet Malachi talked to in that scripture knew what he meant. There was nothing allegorical there to them. The audience was jewish, living in the middle east and they knew what damage those pests did to farm produce. The temple was operating with the temple storehouse with them then. That scripture wasn't written to a Christian.

If you read the whole of Joel 2 in context you would have seen the promise of God pouring out his spirit on his people, Blood moon etc. These were prophecies that were fulfilled when Jesus ascended and while some are yet to happen and you can see that they were connected to the restoration from the years of the cankerworm and locust. That's why Peter could quote that verse in referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Else, he would have been misapplying scriptures that referred to farmers in using it to explain the strange occurrence on that memorable day.

you're right that chapter was prophecy about the future and even though peter used it to describe what happened on pentecost, plenty parts of it are still future and strictly for isreal. This will take us into eschatology and i doubt we are both ready for that discussion now.

Deuteronomy 25:4 KJV

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

This audience too was Jewish, living in the middle east as well. But they would have been amiss to insist that Moses ONLY referred to literal oxes because in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul used that OT verse to refer to ministers of the gospel and how they should be allowed to make their living from the gospel. The same Paul used Abraham's maid and wife to teach about the Law and Grace. Which means the instance of sending the bondwoman away for the freewoman to have her say wasn't just what it was on the surface. It was allegorical of something spiritual, same with Devourers as used in Malachi 3.

Candour:

Those prophet Malachi talked in that scripture knew what he meant. There was nothing allegorical there to them. The audience was jewish, living in the middle east and they knew what damage those pests did to farm produce. The temple was operating with the temple storehouse with them then. That scripture wasn't written to a Christian.

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

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

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

mbaemeka:
Deuteronomy 25:4 KJV

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

This audience too was Jewish, living in the middle east as well. But they would have been amiss to insist that Moses ONLY referred to literal oxes because in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul used that OT verse to refer to ministers of the gospel and how they should be allowed to make their living from the gospel. The same Paul used Abraham's maid and wife to teach about the Law and Grace. Which means the instance of sending the bondwoman away for the freewoman to have her say wasn't just what it was on the surface. It was allegorical of something spiritual, same with Devourers as used in Malachi 3.

Can any man forbid that we call you Dumbo Obtuso seeing you are completely clueless? Do you speak English? Slither back to making hijabs and burka for your sisters

Image123:


OH shut up already and present the many tithe threads where antitithers and non tithers were cursed.

mbaemeka:
Deuteronomy 25:4 KJV

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

This audience too was Jewish, living in the middle east as well. But they would have been amiss to insist that Moses ONLY referred to literal oxes because in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul used that OT verse to refer to ministers of the gospel and how they should be allowed to make their living from the gospel. The same Paul used Abraham's maid and wife to teach about the Law and Grace. Which means the instance of sending the bondwoman away for the freewoman to have her say wasn't just what it was on the surface. It was allegorical of something spiritual, same with Devourers as used in Malachi 3.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Image123:


Leviticus 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's unclothedness; they shall be childless.
Mark 6:18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

Do you think that scripture above applies to a Christian saved by the blood of Christ today? Or we can go get our brother's wife as we're saved by God?

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

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

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

Romans 2:14 says that Gentiles who do not have the Law can do by nature the things contained in the Law; and Romans 3:29 affirms that God is also the God of the Gentiles and not only of the Jews.

My brother,
There is a very intelligent reason why you no longer circumcise on the eight day or slay bulls according to Moses. And I didn't mention offer turtledoves as you dedicate your baby yet Jews did all these. The reason is you are under a New Testament where none of these are required of you yet you serve the same God as those under the Old Testament. Comprende?

Bidam:
Romans 2:14 says that Gentiles who do not have the Law can do by nature the things contained in the Law; and Romans 3:29 affirms that God is also the God of the Gentiles and not only of the Jews.

vooks:
My brother,
There is a very intelligent reason why you no longer circumcise on the eight day or slay bulls according to Moses. And I didn't mention offer turtledoves as you dedicate your baby yet Jews did all these. The reason is you are under a New Testament where none of these are required of you yet you serve the same God as those under the Old Testament. Comprende?

You are shifting...Am actually referring to the moral law of adultery. It is universal even before the gentiles knew the torah.

Who distinguishes a 'moral' law from the rest? Your arbitrariness? What do you mean by 'universal'?

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

Bidam:
You are shifting...Am actually referring to the moral law of adultery. It is universal even before the gentiles knew the torah.

vooks:
Who distinguishes a 'moral' law from the rest? Your arbitrariness? What do you mean by 'universal'?

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

An argument going on for a long time here is whether premarital sex is fornication. Now premarital sex may not be worded in the NT as part of fornication but it's found in the mosaic law which was intended to bring awareness of sin and guilt.

Bible sense entails that by obedience to the Holy Spirit, Christians manifest God’s love and righteousness in harmony with the Commandments moral principles.

My brother,
I don't get what you are onto but I believe the definition of fornication in NT and the USAGE of the same from first century settles it. If it includes premarital sex, then premarital sex is fornication

What is your point?

Bidam:
An argument going on for a long time here is whether premarital sex is fornication. Now premarital sex may not be worded in the NT as part of fornication but it's found in the mosaic law which was intended to bring awareness of sin and guilt.

Bible sense entails that by obedience to the Holy Spirit, Christians manifest God’s love and righteousness in harmony with the Commandments moral principles.

Bidam:
Romans 2:14 says that Gentiles who do not have the Law can do by nature the things contained in the Law; and Romans 3:29 affirms that God is also the God of the Gentiles and not only of the Jews.

Why do many of you ignore Acts 15 when it comes to the Christian and the Mosaic law?
Was this not the issue there?

Is the NT not clear enough about sexual immorality?

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

vooks:
My brother,
I don't get what you are onto but I believe the definition of fornication in NT and the USAGE of the same from first century settles it. If it includes premarital sex, then premarital sex is fornication

What is your point?

Ok, never mind.

Cheer bro

Bidam:
Ok, never mind.

trustman:


Why do many of you ignore Acts 15 when it comes to the Christian and the Mosaic law?
Was this not the issue there?

Is the NT not clear enough about sexual immorality?

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

So what are the consequences of sexual immorality to the christian who is free from the law ? I don't even see any penalty to those who do not tithe in the mosaic law. The prophecy came when Israel was unfaithful long after the Law was given.

You are funny,
There are specific penalties for breaching specific Laws like sabbath,stealing, or witchcraft or adultery and then there is the general curse for breaking ANY of the Laws

AM sure you don't need verses but I will gladly share if you doubt it

Bidam:
So what are the consequences of sexual immorality to the christian who is free from the law ? I don't even see any penalty to those who do not tithe in the mosaic law. The prophecy came when Israel was unfaithful long after the Law was given.

[quote author=vooks post=28177295]You are funny,
There are specific penalties for breaching specific Laws like sabbath,stealing, or witchcraft or adultery and then there is the general curse for breaking ANY of the Laws

Do these penalties apply to the christian? I was actually interested in that of adultery.

AM sure you don't need verses but I will gladly share if you doubt it

Feel free the cite a verse from the mosaic law where penalties was imposed on those who don't tithe.

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

Bidam:
So what are the consequences of sexual immorality to the christian who is free from the law ? I don't even see any penalty to those who do not tithe in the mosaic law. The prophecy came when Israel was unfaithful long after the Law was given.

Is your hopping from one thing to another this morning for real or you just feel like posting things?

You wouldn't even focus on getting an issue clear before jumping on to another.

When the Christian is told to 'flee' something does that suggest to you that it is right? If the Christian disobeys such a directive do you suppose there will be penalty?

Have you never read Deuteronomy 30? Maybe you should go and read it.

He is closely following image123.
He wants to demonstrate that we are not really that 'free' from the Law since we 'look to the Law for guidance' in matters such as adultery. Next step will be to wonder why we readily dismiss tithing yet we retain adultery from Moses. He will brand us hypocrites

Brain is a terrible thing to waste

trustman:

Is your hopping from one thing to another this morning for real or you just feel like posting things?

You wouldn't even focus on getting an issue clear before jumping on to another.

When the Christian is told to 'flee' something does that suggest to you that it is right? If the Christian disobeys such a directive do you suppose there will be penalty?

Have you never read Deuteronomy 30? Maybe you should go and read it.

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

I am asking for specifics not generalities. You are saying this general curses applies to widows,orphans and strangers who are exempted from the tithes?

What are the consequences of sexual immorality to a christian?

trustman:

Is your hopping from one thing to another this morning for real or you just feel like posting things?

Nope, am still in sync with your Malachi myth.

You wouldn't even focus on getting an issue clear before jumping on to another.

Who is jumping from issue to issue, is your brain dead slow?

When the Christian is told to 'flee' something does that suggest to you that it is right? If the Christian disobeys such a directive do you suppose there will be penalty?

What is the penalty if a christian disobeys such a directive?

Have you never read Deuteronomy 30? Maybe you should go and read it.

Yes i have and it doesn't help your case nor answer my questions.

Apologies my brother,
I was referring you to consequences of breaking the Law for people UNDER the Law

Wages of sin is DEATH or eternal separation from God

Bidam:
I am asking for specifics not generalities. You are saying this general curses applies to widows,orphans and strangers who are exempted from the tithes?

What are the consequences of sexual immorality to a christian?

vooks:
Apologies my brother,
I was referring you to consequences of breaking the Law for people UNDER the Law

Wages of sin is DEATH or eternal separation from God

So what are the curses to widows,orphans and strangers who are exempted from the tithes UNDER the law?

My brother,
How can they be cursed for that which they are exempted? And BTW, who said they were exempted? These were LEAST LIKELY to engage in gainful farming meaning little to zero increase and no tithing obligation on them. They were mostly on welfare.
Tithes were on the increase and you can bet during famine, there would have been NO increase hence NO tithing obligation on everyone. Could they be cursed for not tithing on the increase they never had?

When the Lord punished Eli's sons, it is because they were the breaking the relevant Levitical laws. A non-Levite can't possibly be punished for breaking Levitical Laws because they are not applicable to them

Bidam:
So what are the curses to widows,orphans and strangers who are exempted from the tithes UNDER the law?

vooks:
My brother,
How can they be cursed for that which they are exempted? And BTW, who said they were exempted? These were LEAST LIKELY to engage in gainful farming meaning little to zero increase and no tithing obligation on them. They were mostly on welfare.
Tithes were on the increase and you can bet during famine, there would have been NO increase hence NO tithing obligation on everyone. Could they be cursed for not tithing on the increase they never had?

My point is i see no specific curse as regards to tithes regulated under the mosaic law, if you have pls show me. No need chasing the wind here.

When the Lord punished Eli's sons, it is because they were the breaking the relevant Levitical laws. A non-Levite can't possibly be punished for breaking Levitical Laws because they are not applicable to them

You think so? An Israel king broke those laws when he entered the temple to offer sacrifices and he is a non levite.

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

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

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

Bidam:
My point is i see no specific curse as regards to tithes regulated under the mosaic law, if you have pls show me. No need chasing the wind here.
You think so? An Israel king broke those laws when he entered the temple to offer sacrifices and he is a non levite.

Bidam:
Nope, am still in sync with your Malachi myth.
Who is jumping from issue to issue, is your brain dead slow?
What is the penalty if a christian disobeys such a directive?
Yes i have and it doesn't help your case nor answer my questions.

See 1 Thessalonians 4: 1-8. Maybe this will help your case whatever it happens to be.
Or are you trying to draw people into your preconceived position?