To Tithe or Not to Tithe? - Christianity Etc (34) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum › Nairaland General › Christianity Etc › To Tithe or Not to Tithe? (67958 Views)
1 2 3 ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ... 64 Reply (Go Down)
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 1:04pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
You're still maintaining the same assertive denial and have yet to show precisely from God's Word where you find that idea. This is cleverly saying it in another way - that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "replaced", and that is the one thing I requested you to demonstrate from God's Word. There is nothing to suggest in the Bible that Melchizedek's priesthood has been "REPLACED" as you asserted earlier.Melchizedek is not our HP. Christ is. Although Christ order is after Melchizedeks in that it is unchanging as He lives forever. In any event, please spill on why you think the tithe is bound to the High Priesthood. The bottomline was that Christ's priesthood was not said to have "replaced" the Melchizedek priesthood - and that is what is pivotal here. Quite a few more details were not mentioned about Melchizedek; but for all that, Scripture declares two immutable things:Re (b) above, I asked before what position or in what capacity does Melchizedek function now? Melchizedek was a type a shadow, the fulfillment is in Christ. Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. Our Lord arose from Judah, where was Melchizedek from? Verse 15 says "in the likeness", likeness being outlined in verse 16 as endless life. Or are you concluding that Christ = Melchizedek? A straight yes or no would be good, surprising, but good  . With all due respect, I've studied the entire book of Hebrews - even going back to the constructs of the original language that are available. That the thrust of book as being the excellency of the priesthood of Christ is not in doubt; but that is not the ONLY thing that the book of Hebrews seeks to establish. That He is far superior to angels (ch. 1 & 2); that He is superior to Moses (ch. 3); that His rest supersedes all others and is the true Sabbath (ch. 4); that He is called after the order of Melchizedek by divine oath (ch. 5-7). . . and that the Father disciplines His chidlren (ch. 12), are all matters and more covered in Hebrews.Well done you! We can share on the other things some other time, for now please chill on the bragging tip. You've been trying to make the Melchizedek priesthood a "type" or "pre-figure" of Christ's; whereas God never said so by any hint in Scripture. If He did say so even remotely, I've been asking you to clearly demonstrate the point from Scripture, and not the dribbling you've been offering.Okay scholar, pray tell if MZD is not a type, pre-figure or shadow, what does MZD represent? And in relation to the Lord? But NOWHERE is there the slightest hint to your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"!! If after all that have gone in my arguments, you now see the Melchizedek priesthood as an "UNCHANGING" priesthood, where then does the Bible teach that the "unchanging priesthood" has been "REPLACED"?!? What is the basis for "REPLACING" an "UNCHANGING priesthood"? Where in God's Word is that fallacy taught at all? Where are the verses that say so?The unchanging - which is key to understanding the MZD HP and it symbolism - is that because he has not beginning of days nor end of life, there is continuity of the one, not continouous changing as in the death of mortal man appointed by the law, as in the Levitical/Aaronic Prieasthood. It in no way suggests that MZD is/or ever was our HP. Please take time to concisely outline what you are saying here? Thanks. Without being subtle, could you please show me where it is written that Abraham had any idea of the Levitical priesthood? How could he have been "acknowledging" the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood when in fact there's nothing to indicate that he knew ANYTHING about the Levitical priesthood?I long since learned that subtlety doesn't work with you. So I'll resort to a blunt instrument !Who said Abraham had any idea? I clearly said he probably didnt. It became apparent as God's plan unfolded and was clearly understood by the writer of Hebrews, and those of us at this time in unfolding redemptive purpose. Hence the exposition. His act of tithing - wether he realised it or not at the time - is pointer to the superiority of the MZD HP as scripture testifies. The reason why you find the questions odd is because you pretend to be reading issues "from the back" and yet not really doing so. If we had to go "back" to the account in Genesis, nothing there suggests that Abraham could have been trying to compare and/contrast Melchizedek's priesthood to ANY OTHER; let alone coming up with the idea that Abraham in himself "was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority" of the Melchizedek priesthood! If English means anything to you, the word "superiority" is used when making comparison between two factors or values! Abraham could not have been making any contrast between Melchizedek and Levi (the latter of which he knew nothing about) before he could "demonstrate/acknowledge" that Melchizedek was "superior"! Who was Abraham comparing Melchizedek with?!?Say after me TV is patient, TV is patient  ! I so have your time girl!You'd have to go back and do a study on both passages in Genesis and Hebrews before making bloviate statements. The basic question here has been: "What prompted Abraham to tithe to Melchizedek?" Was it a "MANDATE". . . "COERCION". . . "COMMAND". . . "FORCE". . or an other legalistic term with which you have been once and again connecting to TITHES and thereby cheating your adulators with all along?What prompted Abraham to tithe? I have repeatedly said, it was a symbolic action, part of which was done to demonstrate the more excellent nature of the order of MZD of that of Levi. EOS. If peradventure you have an alternative reading, pray tell. I have never said it was mandated. Indeed, that is not what is in sight here. And lets not miss sight of the facts. Abraham did not tithe his personal possessions or income on an ongoing basis to Melchizedek. It was symbolic. Apart from yourself,I have no adulators. And I'm doing my best to discourage you. !Good for you! I'm glad that you can come back in one same post and defeat your own assumption. Just above, you made the case that "Abraham by paying a tithe to Melchizedek was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood"; now you're hardly done with that before swinging your own sword across your middle region by denying the same premise: "And no Abraham himself wasn't doing the contrasting"! You're just boxing shadows, TV01. Neither here nor there. I've offered that you go back and calmly see that you've imprisoned your mind with issues that are not found in the Bible; rather than pedantically and sarcastically try to litter this thread with your inconsistencies.1. The lesser is blessed by the greater 2. Tithe would be from the lesser to the greater 3. Abraham - as proxy for Levi - tithed to MZD. Once symbollically but significant in demonstrating the greater and lesser priesthoods. So simple when you know how. Can't touch !God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 1:13pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
otuwe:Why would you say that? otuwe:Even if I refer to the Bible as the word of God, I distinguish it from God The Word (i.e Jesus). Whilst I believe it was inspired by God, it is not God. Apart from some minor things - the bit about Romans? - I see and mostly agree with your point. Are you also fighting me !God Bless TV Pilgrim.1, please 0, don't take this and upside-down the whole thread, or run back-to-back marathons over minor and mostly inconsequential issues. Thanks dear ! |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by buluti(m): 9:06pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
otuwe:@ otuwe i fail to see how your post relates to Tithe, Not to Tithe, Giving or related issues. It might suit you to start a thread on the contradictions in the bible, if its a spiritual book or God's word. Perhaps you need to know that "every scripture is giving by inspiration, " i wont bother to quote or sight the exact scripture before u accuse me like you have done to pilgrim.1. But to address your issues everything in the bible is God's word. Lets not play around words, the writers of the bible were presenting Gods thought to us and they did that under the inspiration of the Holy spirit, and we are baptized into that same spirit, so theres no contradiction. Please note its not a spiritual book, using your words please don't call my fathers word a "spiritual book". To help you on the church issue, the church are a people called out of darkness into light, we are the body of christ. We believe Jesus died for our sins, on the third day he rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God. We confess with our mouth and believe in our hearts this truth. Its our hearts desire to do the fathers will and live by the his instructions found in the Bible, and if it will help thats the reason for the thread. You may wish to study church history if you so choose and see the various stages the bible has gone through, but to state that the Bible is not God's word, i dare say is "heresy". |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 9:42pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
Well, buluti. . . thanks for your efforts at otuwe's.  TV01:No wahala - and thanks for yours to otuwe's as well. However, I'm coming back with a whip for the previous rascally behaviour. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 9:43pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
@otuwe, otuwe:Ok, I take all that as a joke. What really is the difference between "Bible" and "Scripture"? otuwe:Let's try the one you gave as your comfort: 'scripture'; and then re-phrase it in your submission above -- 'in the beginning was the scripture (the scripture was not in existence then) and the scripture was with God (am sure He didn't have the 'scripture') and the scripture was God (am sure it wasn't referring to the 'scripture')'. Don't you see how tediously funny your ideas are already? My dear otuwe, just that you're my darling doesn't mean that I'd have to look the other way about your worries - because if it was someone else, I'd long have set them on the Mississipi. Biko dear, otuwe:Sorry, the Bible IS the Word of God. otuwe:Thank you again - but sorry yet, you haven't checked out your summations carefully. There's a difference between the divine WORD who became Man as Christ Jesus (John 1:1 & 14); and the WORD of God known as Scripture (John 5:39). No doubt, even the Bible names Jesus as the WORD - "and his name is called The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). Yet, even Jesus referred to the Scriptures as the WORD of God (John 10:35). These are not the only connotations of the term 'the Word of God'. However, it is clear that the Bible is the Word of God. One love, abi?  |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 9:55pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
@TV01, TV01:I never said Melchizedek was our High Priest; my position has consistently been that Christ is called after the order of Melchizedek - which indeed clearly shows that the Melchizedek priesthood was NEVER "replaced". In simple terms, TV01, where in the Bible did you read that the Melchizedek priesthood has been 'REPLACED' as you assertively stated earlier? TV01:Again and again I already shared on that, even going so far as to point out that my persuasions about tithing in the NT was not based solely on Heb. 7:8. It was your assertive denials on what Scripture clearly declares that informs my not going on ahead to other verses - especially because you're that impatient to imply that my hint to any other text were attempts at diverting the topic of the thread. So, I've decided to oblige you and remain on that chapter until you can be gentlemanly enough to admit the fallacy of your assertions. Since you've been buying time with your not-so-clever games, I'd wait until you grow up and oblige me answers to the several questions I offered you. TV01:You're just being cheap. Open your eyes and school up - my position has always and ever been on the PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek! Your argument was that the Priesthood itself has been "REPLACED" - and that is the one thing I requested that you to simply show from the Word. If there's any hint (however remote) that the Melchizedek Priesthood has been REPLACED as you asserted, then WHERE is the verse that teaches it so, TV01? I also discussed this issue earlier, and I'll repost why the priesthood itself is what is vital here in this regard than the man himself. You had asked the following question (obviously initially challenging the fact that Melchizedek's priesthood is an unchanging one): Let me ask you this;. . . and my answer was this: We're focusing on the Priesthood itself, rather than on the man Melchizedek himself. That is precisely what we have to see in the statement offered in Hebrews where it is repeatedly said that Christ was called a Priest "after the ORDER of Melchizedek" (see again Psa. 110:4 and Heb. 5:10). That "order" of priesthood was not "set aside" for, or "replaced" by, another priesthood - because it is based on just one thing: "the power of an endless life" (Heb. 7:15-17)!So there. We do not read any hint as to the Melchizedek priesthood being a "shadow" or "type" of the priesthood to which Christ was called. The implication of your argument so far in terms of seeing that Melchizedek priesthood as "REPLACED" is to suggest a third order of priesthood for Christ! There were only TWO orders of priesthoods - not three! Now if the Melchizedek priesthood was "REPLACED", to which ORDER of priesthood was Christ called?!? That is why I repeatedly and pointedly ask you to show me where in the Word of God we are taught that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED". Do I take it that your inability to proffer a verse for that fallacy is simply your recognition that you were dead wrong? If not, then stop belly-dancing around it and simply show from God's WORD the "REPLACE" you asserted for the Melchizedek priesthood where there was none! |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 9:58pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
@TV01, TV01:If you want to discuss who exactly Melchizedek is, then take me on - but be honest enough to hold your Bible and don't try to play games with me. State what you think you know (if anything) about Melchizedek, and let me walk you throw Scripture. I don't boast anything; but your beggarly quiddity is out of this world! I have not argued here to make Melchizedek = Christ. . . and I HAVE SAID SO BEFORE!! ("I haven't argued to make Melchizedek = Christ, have I?" . It's hardly surprising that you've such poor memory to even bother wasting any scholarship on you.However, "in the likeness of" in vs. 15 according to the reading of the NKJV (or, "after the similitude of" in KJV) is not comparing or contrasting between priesthoods, but rather between persons - Melchizedek and Christ ('in the likeness/after the similitude of Melchizedek'). It does not say, or mean to convey the idea of: "in the similitude of the ORDER of Melchizedek" - not at all. So, you can't dribble round those verses to pretend that the PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek has been 'REPLACED'. The Bible simply does not teach that fallacy; else we would not have read the emphatic declaration made repeatedly that God called Christ a Priest forever after the 'ORDER' of Melchizedek - and that with an oath! In simple terms, and for the zillionth time, TV01. . . . . . where is it taught that the Melchizedek Priesthood has been REPLACED? . . . on what basis do you read a 'REPLACE'-ment for that priesthood since you're now forced to admit it is an unchanging priesthood? . . . where do you find the idea of a "REPLACEMENT" for an "UNCHANGING" priesthood itself? . . . why would God be swearing on OATH to make His Son a Priest after something that would be 'REPLACED'? . . . why pretend there is a "REPLACE"-ment for the Melchizedek priesthood where God's WORD never teaches that fallacy? Simple, straight answers from you would be a high stake; but they'd be much appreciated . . . to redeem your subaltern reputation for assertive denials. TV01:Don't wave that tattered flag of a scampered frog on the excuse that I was boasting anything. I've never boasted any great scholarship and have said so many times. But not even for your sake would I lower my standard to your bambino reading skills. TV01:Same thing addressed in length above between the Priesthood itself and the man Melchizedek. Your antics here not a clever-enough loop to evade the questions above, sorry. Just please find me that verse for your "REPLACE"-ment that you forcefully read into God's Word. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 10:03pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
@TV01, TV01:Obliged as requested - please see above. May I add yet another question: between the priesthoods being discussed (Melchizedek's, Aaronic/Levitical, and Christ's), how many "ORDERS" do you read? If Melchizedek's priesthood has been "REPLACED", clearly that sets the 'ORDER of Melchizedek' aside and makes it obsolete in precisely the same way that we read concerning the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. But is that what Scripture teaches about the Melchizedek priesthood - that it has been "REPLACED" as you asserted earlier? If so, where in God's Word did you read that? Yet, the question is a simple one, and not remotely addressed in yours just quoted. I'll yet bring you round your escape theory here again. Earlier, I'd offered that Melchizedek's priesthood is an UNCHANGING priesthood: 1. The priesthood of the NT with Christ as our high priest is clearly after the order of Melchizedek. Scripture teaches that Melchizedek's priesthood is an UNCHANGING priesthood (Heb. 7:15, 21 & 24 -- "it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, . . . But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood"Following that, you had directly asserted this: 2. 4. But even the Melchizedek type has been replaced bas "another has arisen" (of similar type).. . . and I've been repeatedly asking you to furnish me the verses in God's Word that demonstrate that Melchizedek's priesthood has been 'REPLACED' - which after over 40 entries to the present you've failed to show. Not only so, but you also had challenged the point that Melchizedek's priesthood in an UNCHANGING one: 3. 1. If Melchizedeks priesthood is unchanging, where is Melchizedek now? What capacity does he minister in today? Why was he replaced? Why would he be?. . . and only after several repostes did you come round agreeing that Melcizedek's priesthood is an UNCHANGING one! TV01, you're just going round in circles trying to play smart - but not intelligent enough to wangle out of your misery. You've made assertive denials about the texts in question, only now come round agreeing to part, still evading the others with lame bloviates, and yet unable to maintain a consistent position. I would not have bothered to take you round if from the onset you'd simply answered my first two questions as simply as you could have helped it. But as predictable as you can get, you evaded the questions and rather launched your overblown ego into issues I never asked you about! If you'd be so kind to deal with simple questions and be open to discussions rather than pretend to be the grandfather of this thread, we would long have progressed this topic and mutually benefitted both ways. TV01:You're right - subtlety of a crass kind the sort you offer doesn't work with me. Blunt instrumentality - welcome; but be prepared for whatever lands on your head! TV01:Which again skirts round the simple question I asked: What prompted Abraham to tithe without LAW, MANDATE, COERCION, FORCE or COMPULSION?!? TV01:I'm amused now. . . really. Is that what you say to woo your bandied girlies? Sorry, please look elsewhere for your theatrical rehearsals. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 10:06pm On Jul 31, 2007 |
@TV01, TV01:In order words, Abraham tried to 'symbolize' and 'demonstrate' the more excellency nature of the order of MZD of that of Levi'? Hehe. . . let's give you some time to come edit that desperate fissure before I comment. TV01:Abraham tithed - whether once or several times, fact is that he tithed. You guys play cheap with so many excuses to make a case against Abraham's tithing. How many times do you have to "give" before you consider it an act in itself? So, he tithed just once - and that's all that should make it inconsequential, abi? At last, you've come to another issue long awaited: the other tamed excuse that Abraham did not tithe his 'personal possessions or income'. What legitimizes Abraham's act as "tithe" if he took what didn't belong to him and gave it to another? What is that act called - taking what does not belong to you and giving to someone else? And would that act have been accounted as TITHE on behalf of Abraham (Heb. 7:4) and Levi (Heb. 7:9 & 10) if the patriarch was taking what did not belong to him and offering it as HIS OWN tithe? Please don't make me laugh with your nursery rhymes. You're just repeating the lame excuses you ferreted from the myriad of trash on the net. School up and listen close. The basic question I'd ask here is this: To whom do the spoils of war belong? If they belonged to someone else, it would mean that Abraham could not have offered other people's possession and account it as his own tithe. You can't offer the possession of someone else as your own tithes if they did not belong to you at all - that would no longer be called 'tithes', but robbery! In Biblical eschatology, what a man and his company take as 'spoils' in warfare become theirs. Let me offer you a few examples - probably you may have something to show why, how and where I might be mistaken about it: Num. 31:9 -- 'And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.' Num. 31:53 -- 'For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.' Deut. 3:7 -- 'But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.' Deut. 20:14 -- 'But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil[b] thereof, shalt thou take [b]unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.' Jos. 8:27 -- 'Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua.' 1 Sam. 30:19, 20 & 26 -- 'And there was nothing lacking to them, neither small nor great, neither sons nor daughters, neither spoil, nor any thing that they had taken to them: David recovered all. And David took all the flocks and the herds, which they drave before those other cattle, and said, This is David's spoil. . . And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the LORD.' 1 Chron. 26:27 -- 'Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD.' 2 Chron. 15:11 -- 'And they offered unto the LORD the same time, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep.' Matt. 12:29 - 'Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.' Luke 11:22 -- 'But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.' Now TV01, by way of repetition, let me ask you pointedly: to whom did the spoils belong that Abraham offer as his own TITHE? Do you read anywhere in God's Word that an act is accounted as TITHE or OFFERING if someone takes what does not belong to him and offer it as such? What do you call an act where someone takes what is not his own and offers it to another? It's just about time that you began reading the Bible for yourself and cast off these brigand excuses you offer in defence for the bloviate denials that have become your trademark. TV01:Break a bone and make a wish! What's there to applaud in your ribald underscholarship, eh? Please go there and sample your adulators on the thread where you denounced TITHES as 'religiously perverse' among other calumny. And you're trying to discourage me from what - being your adulator?!? *(post scary laughter here)* this chap must be dreaming! TV01:Spare me the 'neat' pious evasions, I beg of you. If you could, please proffer answers to the simply stated questions repeatedly offered. If you can't and may not, no worries - you could be forgiven for all your attempts at wasted efforts to blow hot air and say nothing. Cheerio. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by otolorin(m): 12:00am On Aug 01, 2007 |
right now - nothing feels better dan paying my tithe . . . and i aint going back. it works! |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by Ndipe(m): 3:12am On Aug 01, 2007 |
Does it have to be 10 percent? My understanding, which may be flawed, is that one's tithe is not restricted to a certain percentage, as it was just about the norm in the Old Testament (10%) |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 8:08am On Aug 01, 2007 |
@Ndipe & otolorin, Good morning. How I wish I had the time just now to share and expound on your persuasion. Lord willing, I'll find time as we progress to do exactly that. Ndipe:However, Ndipe you're spot on - and I've hinted that tithe does not have to be 10%. We're given to understand that what Abraham offered was 10% (I'm persuaded this is precisely what the original language implies); and under the Law the concept of 10% was inclusive of that which they offered as tithe (although, the total tithe was actually more than 10%). I'd just say for now that people should be encouraged to tithe. It is not presented as a LEGALISTICALLY MANDATED or COERCED exercise, or a COMPULSION for the Christian. You'd be simply amazed how God doesn't FORCE it upon His children, but yet declares it as part of our New Covenant worship. That is why I started off by asking just two simple questions to help us think on this: 1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT? 2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)? Details later. Many blessings |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by otuwe(f): 8:42am On Aug 01, 2007 |
*if you pay your tithes regularly, thieves will never steal your handset in lagos* so if u ever lose ur expensive handset to thieves then know that its because u dont pay ur tithe. i pay my tithes dats y i have never lost my fone. there is no need for all these grammer dat have flying up and down. the only blessing dat comes from paying tithe are earthly blessings. you wud prosper, buy new fone, get a job, and all that. no spiritual blessing. dat one only comes when you help the people who are really in need. @ pilgrim girlfriend pls dont send me to mississipi oh. like i told u am not as learned as u r |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 9:01am On Aug 01, 2007 |
otuwe:Hmmmm. . . okay Oh! We go see as we progress.  otuwe:Look at this intellectual champion trying to promote me! Haa!! Well, what can I say? Okay, Good morning. do I need Bible verse for that too? |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 10:13am On Aug 01, 2007 |
@ Pilgrim, Morning girl. Hope you are well. Right or wrong side this morning !You really can talk for Nigeria 0 You refuse to progress this discussion, parking aroung minor issues as a diversionary tactic. No probs. I'll - in my customary manner - answer some questions as posed and respond to some statements you've made and hope we can, although I think you are deriving way to much pleasure from being obtuse 1. Priesthood There are two orders. Aaronic/Levitical & that of Melchizedek. The latter is superior to the former and Christs is after the latter. Hebrews 7 in part outlines why the difference in order, primarily due to the endless life and unchanging nature (immortal vs. mortal) of MZD. The act of tithing was corollary in symbolising this difference. Not a practice that was in some way an accroutement of Priesthood. Please serve me a double portion of humble pie if I at any point - and totally mistakenly - I alleged any differently. 2. Spoils I note your gung-ho and rampaging treatise on the spoils. No one has said the spoils don't go to the victor. No one has said spoils cannot in some way be offered as a sacrifice. Please acquaint yourself with a modicum of restraint and try and focus on the main issue dear (or perhaps you couldn't pass an opportunity to trumpet you supposed scholarship huh  ? Thank you.However, Ndipe you're spot on - and I've hinted that tithe does not have to be 10%. We're given to understand that what Abraham offered was 10% (I'm persuaded this is precisely what the original language implies);If it is not mandatory and if it does not have to be 10%, you render your whole argument meaningless. The NT only talks of this kind of act as "giving". I'd just say for now that people should be encouraged to tithe. It is not presented as a LEGALISTICALLY MANDATED or COERCED exercise, or a COMPULSION for the Christian.Please explain why NTC should be encouraged to tithe, when they are exhorted to give (sacrifice), to the point of doing so sacrificially (more than they are able). The spectrum for Christian giving is whole, the reasons for Christian giving are clear and the instances obvious. Recourse to phrases so broad as to be menaningless - "worship response" being prime - don't alter anything. A NTC that refuse to take kickbacks, fornicate or lie, is offering worship. You'd be simply amazed how God doesn't FORCE it upon His children, but yet declares it as part of our New Covenant worship.No, God doesn't force it upon us. The NTC mandate is to give with a cheerful heart, as much as you can, as much as you want even. But to say it is part of NCW is simply untrue. Or maybe I should ask that you kindly show how? 1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?Here you are being particularly obtuse. Is there any command telling NTC not too give. Is there anything in scripture that would suggest that giving is not part of the Christian lifestyle. If giving is freewill, how can there be a command? If you are trying to warp the exhortations to bless those who labour as a reading tithe, that speaks volumes about you and possibly your denominational practice, and little or nothing about NTC practice. 2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?You are very adept at trying to frame the discussion by posing leading questions, but your bias and unsubtlety cry out. See how you slyly term tithe as "a type of giving". No one disputes the fact that there are blessings for giving, although we may disagree over the hows and whens. You have repeatedly failed to answer the questions "is tithe distinct from giving?", "are there blessing for tithing" based solely on that act", "are these blessings denied those who give, but don't tithe?" In fact you are so obvious, that it's clear to see where you are working your way towards. But I'll allow you to be hoist by your own petard. God bless TV otolorin:No, it's works! |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by Nobody: 10:14am On Aug 01, 2007 |
pilgrim.1:To hell with tithe. The creator is the owner of the riches we have and who the hell now gives a commandment to give just 10% of the real owner's wealth back to him, is that not absurd? |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 10:41am On Aug 01, 2007 |
enitan2002:@enitan2002, If you don't understand a matter, simply hold your peace and don't let anyone mistake you for what you didn't plan they should. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by otuwe(f): 10:46am On Aug 01, 2007 |
enitan2002:hope all is well. this ur post na die. is someone annoying u there or is it just this thread dat makes u this angry. this is religion forum why the use of to hell and who the hell |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 11:47am On Aug 01, 2007 |
@TV01, TV01:I've made my point as clearly as could be. No worries if you refused to see them, and the problem you now face in my rejoinders is because you couldn't be simple enough to answer the first two questions I offered; nor have you attempted subsequent ones. TV01:I'm going to spare you a few more swathes for now; but you can't really be serious in the above joker. I've asked that you proffers simple straight answers to questions to enable us progress the topic; but no - you couldn't resist displaying your overblown bloviates and alleging your fears in my posts. Your nightmares haven't even begun. TV01:You don't need any humble pies - where I don't agree with your assertions, I simply state it so and go on to show from SCRIPTURE why so. The question still remains - WHERE in Scripture does it teach that the Melchizedek PRIESTHOOD has been REPLACED?!? I'll offer you just one thing here: if you come back evading that question, I'd rather take it as a political acknowledgement of your recognition that you were making assertively denying Scripture. If not, then please oblige me the simple request. Thank you. TV01:I've focused on the main issues and showed precisely from SCRIPTURE that spoils of war belong to those who take them in war. That was a response to the lullaby you offered that Abraham didn't tithe of his personal possession - and I asked you to "show why, how and where I might be mistaken about it"! Did I ask you for the excuses (more like your hallmark whining) you post up there? You denied the case of the spoils as belonging to Abraham: now if what I posted to show that idea as wrong is yet flawed, I requested you to show WHY, HOW and WHERE! You're really making a sad case for your pretended scholarship, TV01. TV01:Lol. . . you're just in for a bigger shock! That I do not see tithing in the NT as mandatory is the same consistent position I've maintained all through. Now that nursery rhyme you posted up there to cry meaninglessness into my rejoinder is saying the same thing I pointed out earlier: you have such a humongous difficulty seeing tithe as anything other than MANDATORY! You always want to tie tithes to a MANDATE, COERCION, COMPULSION, or FORCE; and if anyone says that it doesn't have to be so, then you cry out that it renders their discussion meaningless! You're even more crass than I'd suspected. This is why I carefully asked the first two questions when I came on board this thread, especially the second one. And I've had to ask you a pointed questions here: What prompted Abraham to TITHE without LAW, COMPULSION, COERCION, MANDATE, or FORCE?!? If for you, TITHE must and always be read as "MANDATORY", where does that apply in Abraham's case? Why is it so difficult for you to try to reason with people and instead try to force your own dread into others' posts? Have I ever hinted that my persuasion is according to a mandatory tithe? And if I did not argue from that premise, on what basis does the non-MANDATORY, non-COERCIVE, non-COMPULSIVE, non-FORCEFUL premise of tithe "render" my whole argument meaningless? Doesn't that say simply that YOU DON'T KNOW anything about TITHING UNLESS it is MANDATORY?!? WHY are you forcing your own nightmares into others' posts especially where they have stated again and again that they don't see it as "mandatory", TV01? TV01:As I offered Ndipe and otolorin, I'll do so in due course - and I'll ask you to please answer the questions I offered you earlier. Your assertive and deceptive denials need to be sorted out first so you don't injure yourself badly when I bein to move on from here. TV01:You making recourse to issues (kickbacks, fornicate or lie) aside from the present topic is exactly meaningless. You're sounding ever so desperate now because your own noose is closing in tighter on you. TV01, be a man. You shame your folks by being so beggarly. I've dealt with your betters and found them far more interesting, even though they still didn't measure up. At least they had the decency to be human instead of displaying hypocritic placards as substitute for your inability to answer and deal with questions. There's nothing so far that I've been shy to handle in yours - and your desperation is so comical that . . . hehehe. . I just sometimes have to suppress my laughter. TV01:With all due respect, I'll show how - in as soon as you behave and sort out your denials. Now this is interesting. You take the pleasure of reading your dread of a "mandate" in other people's posts - but you really don't need magnifiers to see your own pharisaic bloopers! What did you just say? See - "The NTC mandate is to give with a cheerful heart" - meaning, that afterall NT giving is a "mandate", not so? It's scary for you to read tithes as a "mandate"; but's alright for the same you to come back and tell us that New Testament Christians have a MANDATE to give with a cheerful heart! No, I'm not misrepresenting you, so don't come back whining like a child. If you're scared to death with the same word you can't tolerate in other posts you read, then don't pretend it in YOURS! That's hypocrisy! TV01:Thank you. TV01:In other words, there's no command obliging Christians to give? No wahala. . . we go see wetin happen to you after I leave you in one lump for Poseidon! For the moment, just don't try to sound politically smart. I live in the UK - and we're sick to the back teeth with that kind of hypocrisy that pretends to be saying something and yet not doing so! Just simply answer the question - persuade your readers that you DON'T see anything in the NT that obliges your giving. . . NOTHING at all! TV01:My denomination has got nothing to do with this. If you're so tight in your intestines about your misery in your denomination, say so and let's put you and your miopic group where you belong. I've been demonstrating my persuasions from Scripture - answering all your This is not a personal issue. But since you strenously want to make it one, please dare me! TV01:TV01, I've offered you from the onset that you discuss. . . discuss. . . discuss issues. What I mean to you may not amount to much, and I'm grateful for that. More slobbers if you may, no problem - I'm sooooo used to that, and can now understand it's second nature to you. BUT - why don't you save yourself the pain of constantly being under my baton? However you feel about what I do, really bears no significant impact in faulting what I posts. . . until you drop that gangrene habit of yours and SHOW exactly HOW, WHY and WHERE I may be mistaken! That's what I've often done to yours where I disagreed. Why is it too much for you to prove your mettle and manhood by doing same and simply? TV01:I have answered those questions; offered 4get_me's post as part of what I agreed with; and will expound on the various types of "giving" in due course. You're simply being dishonest here by pretending to have forgotten I've cleared that ribald whining of yours. No worries - you're displaying the fact that endless repetition is second nature to you besides your assertive denials; and as many times as you use that as a cosmetic cover for your bandies, I'll oblige same. If tithing is NOT a "type" of GIVING (which would make you sound like you see them as the same), why then have you been fighting against it? So, let me get you: TITHING is NOT distinct from other types of GIVING (in order words, TITHING = GIVING and GIVING = TITHING), abi? Now, if you're arguing to make them the same, why are you so militant against it? To cancel tithing is to cancel giving; and to cancel giving is to cancel tithing - going by your argument! TV01, don't further shame yourself. I argued that tithing is NOT to be confused for OTHER types of GIVING - and I also clearly stated that I don't confuse them. That is why if we don't carefully distinguish between them, then the discussion is not even necessary in the first place. You excused your inability to make a definitive statement in your own questions when I offered 4get_me's; wrote it off as religiously unnecessary, but could not offer an alternative! It's soooo easy for your to DENY the clear outlines in others' BUT you can't even offer something alternatively! Is that not showing how lazily you argue out issues? TV01:Lol. . . did you sleep well? I have a way of making people's worst nightmares chase them for the rest of their lives. I'll not want to do that to you - you're so frail! |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 11:49am On Aug 01, 2007 |
@otuwe, otuwe:Lol. . . leave my b/f for me. We go settle our wahala when we connect behind the scenes! |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 12:09pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@ Pilgrim.1, Another saga, which totally ignored my questions. This is becoming tedious. In order to progress, may I suggest we do this point by point? The gentleman as ever, I'll allow you to initiate (but not lead !). I'll trust that you'll keep all questions straightforward and concise, as well as any answers.If it's ok by you, please say so and ask away. If you have a better idea, fine. God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 1:08pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@TV01, TV01:I apologise - I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to be tedious, nor have I ignored your questions. And yes, good idea to take it point by point - and do so simply as much as we can help it. TV01:Okay, I'll try to not abuse my place and not 'lead'. TV01:Fair deal. TV01:Okay by me. Yes. If there's anything else, I'll let you know in due course. The previous questions asked already. If they're yet not clear, I'll find time to come list them again neatly, perhaps before the close of work (no later than p.m. tomorrow, Lord willing). TV01:God bless you more. Cheers. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 1:29pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
I quote the body of 4get_Me's post (#600) Fellowship and Partnership Offerings Our giving is not "simply give" - read Gal. 6:6 and Heb. 13:16 (giving that is called "communicate" and "sacrifices" . The word "communicate" in those verses is the same in the Greek [koinōneō and koinōnia] from which we get our words "fellowship" or "partnership". This is one type of "fellowship giving/offering" or "partnership giving/offering." Read Phil. 4:14-16 as an example of this type of giving - the fellowship offerings with which we support the ministers of the Gospel.You'll find again that in I Tim. 6:18, two words are used there - "ready to distribute [eumetadotos], willing to communicate [koinōnikos]." Not really different from this class of giving, but then the words point to the spirit of liberality - being liberal at giving. Worship Collections/Offerings 1 Cor. 16:2 - "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." This is not the type of giving expressed in Gal. 6:6 and Heb. 13:16. This is points to our Christian expression of financial giving on the first day of the week - our Sunday worship activity. We ought not confuse these types of giving and just indiscreetly give however we think fit. Infact, when you read from verse 1 in I Cor. 16, you see it is the usual practice (and the reasons) of the churches founded by the apostles, not only in Corinth, but as far as unto Galatia as well. I have reasons from I Cor. 4:17 to believe that it was the normal practice of every church in the apostolic age. Benevolence to Poorer Folk Distinct from the first two types of giving is that of being benevolent towards people - within and outside the Church. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35) seems to be the driving impetus of their liberality in this way. We are to give to everyone who has need, both collectively or individually. This is exemplified in Gal. 2:10 - "Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do." Alms giving also falls within this category, and Jesus made reference to it - Matt. 6:3-4. Tithes and Special Offerings There are personal matters that each Christian communicates between himself/herself and God. Jesus said this type of transaction should be private (or secret, depending on version - cf. Matt. 6:6). Now, why tithes? It is not condemned in the NT, neither is it viewed as evil as might have been supposed by those averse to it. This is a transaction that I personally take upon my self to give a designated portion of my income "as God hath prospered [me]" (I Cor. 16:2). This is what I lay up in store at designated times, and based on commensurate prospering that God allots me. There are special transactions that Christians have with God that no one else makes their business - that is where my tithes and special offerings come in. I have also re-read and have this to say. Fellowship and Partnership Offerings Whether you call it communicate, distribute, share or sacrifice - or dash even - it is giving. As I have always maintained, giving is primarily in response to need (and also to bless). If it is for those reasons, why would it be termed “indiscreet”? Now, regards ministers of the gospel. All are priests, and all minister (obviously within the context of experience, maturity and need). Ministers of the gospel are not salaried or financially supported as a matter of course. Indeed, supporting ministers is the exception rather than the rule, and is only necessary, where the nature of the work prevents the minister from earning their own living or othersise supporting themselves and their family. This does not stop brethren appreciating those who minister by sharing – be that money, time, resources, expertise or any other beneficial thing – with them. Again, this would be with an eye on need – of both parties and of others in the congregation. The idea that giving to a minister - even if your need or someone else’s is greater - as God will surely bless you for it, is unthinking, unbalanced and unbiblical. So again, the reason to give to ministers is primarily due to need (or to bless, which should not cause you hardship or overlook a pressing need elsewhere). And it in no way points to a spirit of liberality. As all giving does that. Pointless ad-libbing. Worship Collections/Offerings Please read from the beginning of 1 Corinthians 16, the motivation for this collection was need, as it always is. There is no stricture to give on the first day of the week. This totally misses the liberty in Christ. That was a suggested and convenient time and in response to a “need” in Jerusalem. Again, collections are not taken as a matter of course and then labeled “worship response”. Money primarily moves in response to need. Putting money into a collection is not an act of worship in or of itself. Worshipping the Lord with your money is to apply it to need in the body (and without), and secondarily to bless. Benevolence to Poorer Folk It is not distinct in it’s driver which is need, it’s reason which is equality/commonality (to address at least basic needs), it’s attitude which is , cheerful, liberal and it’s gamut, which is from little to sacrificial. And please reference Matthew 25:31-46. The rewards are for succour of the needy, the hurting, the downtrodden and the disenfranchised. Which ties easily in with the Lords two references to tithe a la the weightier matters of the law being love, justice, mercy. Tithes and Special Offerings This is were it really ramps up and becomes overly ritualised and needlessly religious(presumably to befuddle the unaware  ).All giving is individual and personal. This bit is so lacking in weight as to be meaningless. The tithe is not condemned, but neither is it mandated. And if one does anything, with any portion of what God has prospered him with, and wants to call that or any personal action a tithe, so what? It doesn’t make it the norm. As I have said a personal voluntary tithe is just that, your business and of no lien on anyone else. And please, “Special Offering”, what is that? What motivates that? You can’t worship God with things, that’s just pagan. In sum, I see nothing here of any real import. Merely the kind ofl thinking, which would bind NTC in when and how to give, robbing them of liberty in Christ. Poor doctrine based on wrong structure or vice-versa. Just my opinion. And apologies if my tone is a little harsh. But there is nothing there. I laugh when I hear all these complicated but unconvincing arguments to try and justify a tithe. Either as mandatory with curses, or voluntary with blessings. Funny how the “all things in common approach” is never touched upon, or the broader depth of giving in Acts never broached. God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 1:51pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@TV01, I offered that I'd be coming back to make more input later (as I'm somewhat busy at the moment). However, going through what you've tried to argue above, could I get the gist of your argument as pointing to the following - 1. TV01:. . . that there are NO DISTINCTIONS in types of giving (nothing at all to distinguish them)? 2. TV01:. . . that the only thing that marks out GIVING is a NEED? 3. TV01:. . . that there is no verse at all (NT and OT) that marks out our giving as part of our worship? 4. TV01:. . . that giving does not bring about any blessing at all to the giver? There are indeed more questions (including the very first two offered when I came on board this thread); but I'll just want to know in simple terms where you stand so I could then come back (when I'm less busy) to share a few things on what IMHO you might be missing out on. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 2:36pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
pilgrim.1:Reasons, times, occassions, attitude even, all underpinned by need - or to a lesser degree to bless - but I don't see types or the need for them. Neither do I see that the types generate uniquely distinct blessings unavailed by those who do not give to type or not all the outlined types. pilgrim.1:I have made it very clear, that I see need as the primary driver. I don't eliminate giving to bless, but I see precedence on the basis of need. pilgrim.1:I don't believe I said that. I said giving is worship, and responding to need is worship. I don't believe God is directly worshipped with material things. pilgrim.1:How many times have we touched on that? Can you be asking that in all fidelity? Never the less, I'll respond. Yes giving engenders blessings. But giving motivated purely by return - especially earthly and in kind - is not worship. You realise it will degenerate if you insisst on ascribing things to me, posing pointedly leading questions and endlessly appealing to OT types - when the NT is clear and concise - to drag things all over the place? God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 4:13pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@TV01, TV01:I'm not ascribing things to you other than what YOU state yourself. If you don't want to be quoted, quit posting anything. The questions I asked are simple and clear enough. You don't like to be queried on what you're arguing, then please say nothing at all. TV01:There you go again. TV01, in my first question in this fresh discussion, I did NOT ask you for any of the following: . . . I did not ask you many questions about REASONS . . . I did not ask you many questions about TIMES . . . I did not ask you many questions about OCCASIONS . . . I did not ask you many questions about ATTITUDE EVEN . . . I did not ask you many questions about whether they are UNDERPINNED BY NEED and . . . I did not ask you many questions about what GENERATES UNIQUELY DISTINCT what-nots! The one simply straight-forward question I asked was this: . . . are you arguing: that there are NO DISTINCTIONS in types of giving (nothing at all to distinguish them)? You create grounds for being complicated to yourself; and when questions are offered in regards to your direct statements, you complain that I'm ascribing things to you? I don't think any reader would be interested in another round of the same tired, old, windy argument. I could oblige you; but let's not go into that as it would be unnecessary. TV01:Scroll up and see what I quoted in yours. In regards to NEED, you had said in that connection: "As all giving does that." My simple question was and is: . . . are you arguing: that the only thing that marks out GIVING is a NEED? You often emphasize this point about NEED being the primary thing that prompts giving - so I would appreciate a clear straight answer to the question. If it is not, then I'd like you to also proffer other reasons (beyond the general idea of 'bless') that you find in SCRIPTURE. TV01:Indeed you said exactly this - "You can’t worship God with things, that’s just pagan." If you now turn round to say that 'giving is worship', what then was the idea behind your thought that worshipping God with things is pagan in connection with the question of giving? Is one's giving not part of worship? - and that was the question I asked you: . . . that there is no verse at all (NT and OT) that marks out our giving as part of our worship? Why do you make statements out of hand and then complain when you're asked questions on them, TV01? TV01:Let me be more direct with you: Does God bless a giver over those who do not give? The reason why I'm asking this question is because you seem to be pushing the idea that people can give nonchalantly or indifferently - that if they don't give, then God still responds to their non-giving in the same way He does to those who give. If people don't give to expect blessings in return, what then is the meaning of the Bible stating this about seed sown: 2 Cor. 9:10 -- "Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness" ?? I do hope you'd aim to be uncluttered and not make statements that you don't hope to be queried about. If you'd not like to be asked questions, then it's well that you simple reserve your comments to yourself and say nothing at all. Cheers. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 5:19pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@ Pilgrim, Haven't I tried to keep this uncluttered and simple? Okay. There you go again. TV01, in my first question in this fresh discussion, I did NOT ask you for any of the following:Is there anything ambiguous about this; but I don't see types or the need for them.Is it wrong to clarify answers somewhat ? Are you actually reading what I write? or merely looking for opportunity to vent?Scroll up and see what I quoted in yours. In regards to NEED, you had said in that connection: "As all giving does that." My simple question was and is:No I didn't. 4get_Me suggested that the first "type" of giving he outlined suggested liberality. I merely said all giving does that. Please take time to read me right, or simply ask what I mean. Indeed you said exactly this - "You can’t worship God with things, that’s just pagan."Please add "directly" before things. I included that in reponse to your question #3. What I was refering to was Acts 17:25. In any event it doesn't make sense to read it as both. Especially in light of what I wrote about giving (but not directly to God & in response), being part of worship. Yes Miss, giving is part of worship. In repsonse to a need (or to bless). And yes, there are verses that attest to that. Harder than a blind date in a dark place ! Patience TV, patience.Things will stall if you see something that is obviously out of step with what has gone before and then swoop on it from a great hight. First, it's in all liklihood an error. Second, an error in my post doesn't in itself prove anything in yours. Let me be more direct with you: Does God bless a giver over those who do not give?I'll say this, God blesses givers (motivation and attitude being right). To say universally that he blesses those who do over those who don't ignores circumstances. Making the distinction of thoase who don't because they cannot and those who don't because they will not. And I'd also consider it in relative vs absolute terms. The reason why I'm asking this question is because you seem to be pushing the idea that people can give nonchalantly or indifferently - that if they don't give, then God still responds to their non-giving in the same way He does to those who give.I am not pushing the idea of nonchalant giving. How does that mean anything in practical terms? Perhaps you should ask if you are proclaiming purely calculated giving with an eye on potential returns. If people don't give to expect blessings in return, what then is the meaning of the Bible stating this about seed sown:Mayhaps I was right about your proclamation. Fruit abounds to one's account for gracious giving. That's not to say that it is necessarily to be recieved here and now or even in kind. God promises to supply needs. Even if one limits it to money. How does Paul exhort the rich to give in Timothy? And to what earthly/heavenly benefit? Are you suggesting that the Macedonians subsequently became mega-rich having given beyond their means? Or were in material terms definitely better off than they were before? Trying to quantify everything monetarily is at best mistaken. I do hope you'd aim to be uncluttered and not make statements that you don't hope to be queried about. If you'd not like to be asked questions, then it's well that you simple reserve your comments to yourself and say nothing at all.I have no problem if anyone seeks clarification, but to take something that is obviously in dissonance to what has been said before, is out of context or otherwise misread - especially when the point is turned into an epic - is no way to progress. God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 5:52pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@TV01, I'm keeping it as civil as can be; but if you can't, please let me know upfront. TV01:I read what you wrote - and I asked a pointed question to filter your overblown statements for a direct response to the one simple question. You often tend to want to sound neither here nor there - and if you're not going to be consistent, please let me know. The question is simple: Are there different types of giving, or all giving are the same? TV01:Same thing here and basic question: are there different types of giving or they're all the same? TV01:Please be honest - Acts 17:25 does not relate to our topic - not even "directly". In context, we know what the apostle was pointing out to those he was preaching; and he wasn't talking about any type of (financial) giving there. TV01:Okay, giving is part of worship. So please strike out your verbose "that's just pagan" - it's a blinder for desperation on your part. TV01:Don't be silly. Who's pushing you to make such errors and come back whining? If you've got nothing to say, reserve the rest of your errors and don't litter the thread with them. TV01:Rubbish. Keep it simple - I didn't ask you for circumstances as yet. If we need to go into that, we shall so do when we come to it. TV01:Ah there. Until you bring in this divider, you just can't stay on course. Okay, I'll just be a little accommodating on that just now. TV01:I'm dealing with the basics first before we go into detail. I simply wanted to sort out the often tangled statements you make that tend to assertive denials so you don't wangle in and out when we take the discussion further than has been tediously attempted because you just can't seem to hold course otherwise. TV01:How does that answer the question I asked? TV01:I'm not posting my opinions to you as yet - simply deal with what the texts say (2 Cor. 9:10) and don't try to make it a matter of how you feel about me. We shall come to the case of the Macedonians when we get there - but for the moment I offered you 2 Cor. 9:10 in relation to your assertion that: But giving motivated purely by return - especially earthly and in kind - is not worship.I'm least interested in your dramatic pandemonium at the moment. You made a statement; since I'm not clear, I asked you to consider a text. If you can't do that, save your passions and don't invite what you're not prepared for. TV01:Then keep it simple and don't play politics with this topic. Straight questions, straight answers. Where we're not clear, we'd oblige you to elaborate. I didn't ask you the many questions that you launched into in regards to my first question. Once we sort out your clutter, it'd be easier to discuss and progress on other points. So far you've been speaking from both sides of your mouth - not good enough. It is like this, thus and so; and this is how, with thus and so verses; and the point is thus and that, etc. -would be appreciated. Making bloviate statements and coming back in panic that I'm ascribing things to you is no way to defend your errors. You've got nothing better than the errors? Then save the rest. Thank you. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by Pacifier(m): 6:18pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
I personally think, HND Holder & Otuwe have already cleared these whole mess with commonsense! I just wish to appeal to them to be satisfied in the knowledge of that understanding. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 6:27pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
Pacifier:'COMMONSENSE' does not tell us what the WORD says. |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by TV01(m): 7:10pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@ Pilgrim; You asked this; pilgrim.1:And later this; pilgrim.1:To which I responded thus; TV01:What is difficult about that ?Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. TV01:For you to say v25 above has no baring on giving and how we worship God sounds like an assertive denial to me .So, God is not worshipped with things. So to try and directly worship God with material things - a goat, wood, money - is at best mindlessly ritualistic and pagan. In as much as we worship God with our giving, it's through our response to need (or too bless). Happy now? The rest of your last post was just rant. I'll excuse myself from responding. God bless TV |
| Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe? by pilgrim1(f): 7:22pm On Aug 01, 2007 |
@TV01, Thank you for keeping it simple this time around. TV01:I simply wanted to know what you see in the WORD; and not what you feel about the question. Does Scripture show that there are different types of GIVING, or ALL TYPES of giving are the same - no distinctions at all? That's just about the same question put another way. TV01:I don't think my reposte on that was an assertive denial. At least we can both see that the verse was not speaking about GIVING in connection with what we're discussing, yes? TV01:Well so. I won't be tedious to you with that 'response' in your post; but I'd like you to note it when next you complain about 'worship response'. Fair enough? TV01:Good. When you save the needless harangue, you won't read same in mine. Bless. |
To Tithe Or Not To Tithe: The Whole Truth From The Bible. • Ten (10) Reasons To Tithe • Jesus Is The Fulfillment Of The Law (tithing), Do I Still Need To Tithe? • 2 • 3 • 4
Stephanie Otobo's Statement Of Account Spills More Secrets About Apostle Suleman • ''Wicked Village Wait For Me, I'm Coming'' (Photo) • Vincent & Faith Nzeakor: Achieving Sexual Orgasm In A Christian Marriage (Photo)