I'm sure Enigma will more than adequately respond to you in his own unique way, but while we wait, allow me.

What is the "proper context" you have indicated by that analogy?

1. The Lord was addressing those under the law
2. The payment was not money, but farm produce

WHAT did Jesus ask them to observe? ("these ought ye to have done"

Tithing their produce

and what OTHER thing was He asking them to not leave UNDONE? ("and not to leave the other undone"

JM&F. Those who are smitten by the letter of the law can be worryingly blind to its intent. The whole of the law is summed up in "love God and thy neighbour". If you do so you will treat him fairly, attend to their needs, be merciful and live by faith not mindless ritual.

^{Plus, all this is still about the law,  which you have severally stated is not the basis on which you validate the tithe. Please stop obsfucating! Noting that your understanding or inferences from the law are still hideously flawed.}

If Jesus spoke of the one, was He intending to overthrow the other?

Presumably your gargantuan intellect can now see the senslessness of this statement?

WHERE specifically did Jesus make Matthew 23:23 REDUNDANT?

Are you so enamoured with the law that you percieve Matthew 23:23 to be one? OMG !

In other words, Matt. 23:23 was does not reflect Jesus commanding His believers/followers to observe the elements of the Law that he spoke about in that verse - "judgment, mercy, and faith"?!?

Listen real carefully here my dear! Jesus was not asking His followers to attain to anything by observing the law, He introduced a whole new way to do so. It's called grace.

And as Enigma rightly pointed out, He was not in this instance addressing His followers.

Even perfection under the law (Philippians) does not engender the righteousness of faith.

Posts of epic length aside Pilgrim.1, you are scarily wrong in your understanding of law and grace and the context and applicability of both. Attempting to camoflauge your error under reams of academic jargon, by recourse to the languages of antiquity, by digging up esoteric bible versions and obscure scriptural translations do nothing to disguise your ignorance (if you truly believe what you write and are not using the gospel as a cloak for covetopusness). In fact, they just make it all the more apparent, and push you further down the hubristic path of "knowing" more than others. back to love girl. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

God bless
TV

TV01,

TV01:

How far? Hope you've cooled down somewhat? Take it easy my dear, gurning belligerence although highly beloved by a certain type of person, does not actually prove anything. Now to work .

I wasn't seeking your accolade; so if it gets you miffed that a few people find it easy enough to discuss with me, you could as well crawl back to your sob hole. I've again and again asked that you invite a discussion; but since you're a total stranger to that appeal, I'll just serve you whichsoever way you request.

TV01:

For completeness sake, I wnt back and reread your torrent of incontinent prose - I use the word prose liberally - and have this to say in response to your quote below;

Leaving aside the middle two for now, pray tell;

1. What the specific commandment in the law (any part of it) apply to Christians
2. What exactly are the "divine principles" you mentioned

Especially in light of this;

John 1:17 - For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

If you have issues - specific issues - that bother you, please offer them. I've carefully considered as many texts about "the LAW" as I possibly could manage before I posted the outline in the other thread which you have brought forward here. Perhaps it might interest you to consider Rom. 3:31 when you consider the specifics:

     Rom. 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. "

TV01:

Does that mean that the law (or that part that did not come through Moses?) and the prophets (and the psalms, the history and the prophecies and exhortations), where not fulfilled by the advent and work of the Lord?

I also made reference to the fact that we are not asked to look for LITERAL applications of every single verse; but rather seek to understand the PRINCIPLES stated, explained and applied in the NT.

I further gave a few examples (1 Cor. 14:34); and would oblige you more examples on request. The one thing I've asked you guys to do is DISCUSS in a fair manner - OPEN, HONEST and OBJECTIVELY.

Rather than assume a default position of every single time seeking to castigate people because you can't bring yourselves round to be willing to discuss, you'd do far better in carefully looking into the Bible concerning what they share.

TV01:

John 1:45 - Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph

Are you saying that the the Law which you so needlessly (as with giving) went to great lengths to delineate, classify, graduate and systemise, was continued after the first coming of the Lord, be that in part or in whole?

That TITHES were never disparaged in the NT is what I've precisely tried to share. I don't understand HOW John 1:45 came into the picture, seeing I've never used that in reference to tithes; but since you guys felt that my position or whatever I shared were untennable, I've asked that you show precisely HOW, WHY or WHERE that is the case. More than anything else, I've simplified it further to ask that you show where TITHES were disparaged, denounced or made redundant in the NT.

Could you please oblige me, dear sir? Thank you.

TV01:

Does the verse from John 1 not open up a whole world of meaning to you?

I've considered that as well before I offered the outline on "the LAW" - and I'm willing and open to your views on HOW John 1 negates TITHES; or what exactly your concerns on that passage are.

TV01:

Tell us more about these "divine principle", especially in light of the "continuing" applicability of the law.

Let me remind you of the verses I offered as examples for the application of divine principles in "the LAW" - 1 Cor. 14:34.

Have you taken a close look at that scripture? What do you have to say on this?

Certainly, I'd like to come back and offer more - perhaps in DETAIL (if that's not asking too much) - so that we may all benefit one another either way.

Am I missing something? Did I get it ALL wrong? Does anyone care to walk me through those texts, exmaine what I've said, and then show me HOW, WHY and WHERE that might be so?

TV01:

Presumably they have been codified? And would that be in a succinct way that we could all see and understand, or would only yourself and a few other cogniscenti be wise and knowledgeable to decipher? Care to share with us lowlifes and dank unlearned please?

With all due respect, I don't consider anyone a "lowlife". What I don't take from people is their penchant to ALWAYS deride others in pretended 'scholarship'.

TV01:

Is that a threat or a promise sweetie !

I'm easy to get along with, and you can find me so if you care.

TV01:

We have a tough nut, a fighter! My heart fails me, my bones turn to jelly!

Ok. I hear.

TV01:

Just answer briefly. How is Faith a matter of Law!

This would require something in detail. But here: in summary, one needs to consider the meaning of "the LAW" before assuming that it has no place in the Christian life. This is why I've tried to share with you all that you should please understand that Rom. 3:31 is something to make us think carefully - as the apostle warns Christians to note "void" the Law on assumption that Christians are called to "faith". Here --

  Rom. 3:31 -- "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

TV01:

Abeg Pilly, don't kick sand in my face 0! I'll be the laughing stock of the Nairaland beach!

Okay, I sincerely APOLOGISE. I have behaved badly, and I don't want to keep up that attitude.

I am truly sorry. Let's discuss.


_{BTW, how did you know that I'm called "Pilly?" Just curious. Do you know of any 'Toks', 'Fide', or. . . 'Lan'?!? The first time you used that, I thought it was a slip - but using it again can't be a slip. Did you just guess it?}

TV01,

TV01:

I'm sure Enigma will more than adequately respond to you in his own unique way, but while we wait, allow me.
1. The Lord was addressing those under the law
2. The payment was not money, but farm produce

Tithing their produce
JM&F. Those who are smitten by the letter of the law can be worryingly blind to its intent. The whole of the law is summed up in "love God and thy neighbour". If you do so you will treat him fairly, attend to their needs, be merciful and live by faith not mindless ritual.

We've been thorugh all that, and you're still missing out the basic element here.

Jesus did not disparage, discountenance, or denounce tithes - that's what I'm trying to ask you gentlemen to understand, against the backdrop of the claim that He did, or that it has become redundant!

Now, when in Matt. 23:23 He said "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone", we need to be careful here. He did NOT regard either (a)"these" [weightier matters of the Law - judgment, mercy, and faith] nor the "other" (tithes) as "mindless ritual". There's not a hint that He regarded them as such.

We know when the Lord actually discountenance "rituals". An example: Mark 7:8 - "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."

Clearly, we understand that He did not approve of their "ritualistic" way of life.

But when as regards the matter of tithes and the weightier matters of the Law, how do you read that He might have so regarded them as "mindless rituals"?

TV01:

^{Plus, all this is still about the law,  which you have severally stated is not the basis on which you validate the tithe. Please stop obsfucating! Noting that your understanding or inferences from the law are still hideously flawed.}

I'm not obfuscating. That is why I've aked that instead of launching out like that, please show me HOW, WHY, and WHERE it is so as you say.

TV01:

Presumably your gargantuan intellect can now see the senslessness of this statement?

Thank you. I decided to offer you a new leaf for a discussion - not aspersions. Blessings. 

TV01:

Are you so enamoured with the law that you percieve Matthew 23:23 to be one? OMG !

No, I'm not so enamoured by the Law. I've only thus far been asking that people consider the context of what is meant by "the LAW" before they consider it wholesale "redundant". Even you yourself had to admit at one time that tithing did not originate from the LAW, and therefore could NOT be abrogated! Did you not make that acknowledgement, TV01? Following that, I had to query that assertion of yours, but you made no further comment thereto.

TV01:

Listen real carefully here my dear! Jesus was not asking His followers to attain to anything by observing the law, He introduced a whole new way to do so. It's called grace.

I listened; but where did I ever make reference to any such assumption as you implied?

TV01:

And as Enigma rightly pointed out, He was not in this instance addressing His followers

That's not a strong enough excuse to negate it. If you request, I could show you loads of other issues that He was not directly addressing His disciples, but which no Christian in his or her right mind could disregard as applicable to the Christian.

I don't think this new excuse is a credible one to negate TITHING as such.

TV01:

Even perfection under the law (Philippians) does not engender the righteousness of faith.

I never assumed it did.

TV01:

Posts of epic length aside Pilgrim.1, you are scarily wrong in your understanding of law and grace and the context and applicability of both.

Please set the blanket statements aside, and show precisely HOW, WHY, and WHERE you feel so.

TV01:

Attempting to camoflauge your error under reams of academic jargon, by recourse to the languages of antiquity, by digging up esoteric bible versions and obscure scriptural translations do nothing to disguise your ignorance (if you truly believe what you write and are not using the gospel as a cloak for covetopusness).

Before you assume another aspersion and attempt to commit a "cloak of covetousness" against me, consider that I have NEVER at anytime asked YOU nor your adulators a farthing! Please face the issues being discussed.

Second, I'm not the one "digging up esoteric bible versions and obscure scriptural translations" - please ask Enigma what he was doing in the other thread when he did precisely that! My one concern was that since he could not reason calmly, I'd have to show him that pilgrim.1 was least interested in "esoteric bible versions and obscure scriptural translations".

TV01:

In fact, they just make it all the more apparent, and push you further down the hubristic path of "knowing" more than others. back to love girl. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

I'm not puffed up if I've been making simple requests and all you guys do is simple resort to bloviates that say nothing and refuse to consider issues. I've never claimed to know better than others - and I certainly don't applaud people playing games in their sanctimonious hope that their cosmetic utility-grade scholarship would atone for their discourtesies.

Regards.

Purist:

But I surely will never forget the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17.

I enjoyed yours tremendously, as you brought several issues to my mind. And again, thank you for anticipating me on that verse.

Purist

If you want me to bother to respond to your posts, the first thing you will have to do is to observe basic courtesies and keep out personal comments. In any event, I have no time for "yeahs?" and "and sos?" If you don't understand the import of what I wrote that you responded to with such, especially in the mode and tone used, I have no interest to explain them to you.

If there is an honest seeker or a serious and polite debater, I am ready to explain anything I said in detail.

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Jesus did not disparage, discountenance, or denounce tithes - that's what I'm trying to ask you gentlemen to understand, against the backdrop of the claim that He did, or that it has become redundant!

I feel it is essential to try and see the bigger picture as well as the detail and be sure that there is resonance in one's own position with both.

The Lord did not have to disparage, discountenace or denounce tithes because;

1. His advent, saving work and introducing the dispensation of the Spirit led, grace filled life, did away with the "righteousness by law" dispensation of which tithing was a part.

2. Matthew 23:23. You adamantly refuse to acknowledge the context of that verse and deride it as an insufficient "excuse" to validate the redundancy of tithing.

The Lord fulfilled the law. He did not champion it, or in any way seek to re-inforce its applicability. The law has "righteous requirements", the problem being that the physical works of the law alone could never meet that requirement. In the era of grace, it morphs from a problem to a catch 22 situation, as actually trying to attain to righteousness by law, means you cannot at once attain to it by grace.

3. Romans. 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. "

Pertinent verse, but again one must be able to align it in isolation, context and the overall picture.

Is it the letter of the law that is being established? No, no, no. It’s the righteous requirement of it.

The law was a tutor to bring us to grace. The “intent” of the law remains, but it is not by the letter/works of the law that we satisfy this. It’s by grace through faith, by the Spirit of The Lord.

The Lord was showing that tithing the smallest herbs to anal degree of accuracy would not engender righteousness and in any event, accuracy or even adherence was not the point, loving God and thy neighbour was, hence the reference to judgement, mercy and faith.

So the message IMHO was this “Yes you should have tithed – for you are Jews, under the law, and said law is still in effect – but you have tragically failed to see the intent of the law – justice, mercy, faith etc – Thus presuming yourself righteous because you fulfilled the letter of the law to the tiniest degree – can you imagine accurately tithing herbs as tiny as mint or cumin – is hollow, as that is a works based attempt to attain to righteousness via adherence and accuracy, which although fulfilling the letter, does not the intent.

Romans 8:4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit

I also made reference to the fact that we are not asked to look for LITERAL applications of every single verse; but rather seek to understand the PRINCIPLES stated, explained and applied in the NT.

Again whilst you attention to detail is commendable, it is the wrong approach here. To try and find a principle for every ordinance of the law and translate it into the NT, would be cumbersome and unmanageable. Not to mention that that approach leaves it subject to  many interpretations -  welcome to over 30'000 Christian sects and counting. A birds eye view of the laws intent bests serves here, and enables us to understand this;

Romans 13:8 -  Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.}

Galatians 5:14 - For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself."

God bless
TV

TV01,

You may not know this, but you're coming even closer to confirming my points. Yes, you certainly would disagree about that, but like I often say, here's HOW, WHY and WHERE I'm persuaded that's the case:

TV01:

I feel it is essential to try and see the bigger picture as well as the detail and be sure that there is resonance in one's own position with both.

The 'bigger picture' presented in boths sides is the very thing we have once and again been trying to make you guys come to terms with. We have sounded this again and again, but it seems you keep missing the picture here and mixing it up with the idea that "the LAW" has been made wholesale redundant, and as such, there's nothing in its element that speaks to the Christian today. That is simply not true - and it was for that reason that I actually took time to outline the essential features of what is represented by the term "the LAW" in the NT.

TV01:

The Lord did not have to disparage, discountenace or denounce tithes because;

Okay, first I'd like you to please keep that constantly in mind so that we don't make the mistake of doing such anymore. Since you'd have to agree the Lord did not denounce or disparage tithes, please do not assume to do so either.

TV01:

1. His advent, saving work and introducing the dispensation of the Spirit led, grace filled life, did away with the "righteousness by law" dispensation of which tithing was a part.

Look again at that text in Matt. 23:23 - did the Lord hint anywhere about making anyone "righteous" by the LAW? Or did He intend to suggest there that He had His eyes on the 'dispensation of the Spirit led, grace filled life' that even the Jews could not have understood at that point?

If you think that was the case, wouldn't it be unfair for Him to have been speaking to them about things they had no capacity under the old covenant to grasp? Surely, that would muddle thinsg up. WHY? Because Scripture bears testimony that no one (including His disciples) could have fathomed anything about what the Lord came to establish UNTIL He had risen from the dead. See John 20:9 and Luke 24:45 - ('for as yet they knew not the Scripture'. . . 'Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures') and 1 Cor. 2:8.

Besides all this, the Lord there in Matt. 23:23 was not pointing to the elements of His saving work - else that would mean that He would have indeed spoken in apposite terms regarding the "weihtier matters" of the Law - "judgment, mercy, and faith". These three elements cannot be argued away as if the Cross made them redundant, and they are not matters determined ONLY by the Law.

TV01:

2. Matthew 23:23. You adamantly refuse to acknowledge the context of that verse and deride it as an insufficient "excuse" to validate the redundancy of tithing.

I'm sorry; but I did not "adamantly refuse" to acknowledge the real import of that verse; and indeed, that verse was NOT validating the "redundancy" of tithing. If it was, please demonstrate contextually how that verse makes tithing "redundant".

Now, speaking of the "context" of that verse, you'd see in comparison with other relevant texts that the Lord was not calling for a redundancy of ANY element He spoke about there. Let me offer you two pivotal issues that define the context of what the Lord spoke about there:

(a) the Lord called them "hypocrites"
(b) He called for obedience to both issues:
¤ the weightier matters of the Law - ('THESE ought ye to have done')
¤ Tithes - (and not to leave the OTHERS undone)

Let's examine the first aspect: being a 'HYPOCRITE'.

(a) It was not so much that they were pretending to be what they were not; but that they were giving partial recognition and half-hearted obedience to God's WORD! HOW is this so? Well, the whole tone of His reprimand pointed them out as trying to settle their thoughts on their partial obedience to the WORD ('. . for ye pay tithe. ., and have omitted. .'). TV01, you'd have to agree that making "omissions" while acclaiming that one was obeying the WORD is open hypocrisy - and that's what the Lord pointed out. Compare this with Mal. 2:9 - "according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law."

Secondly, the call to obedience on BOTH sides:

(b) It is clear that the Lord was not making either sides of the issue "redundant" - it is rather men who try to force that idea into the text. If there's anything the Lord denounced in that verse, it was their hypocrisy. However, when He sought to set them straight, He pronounced both aspects and gave His verdict:

"THESE" ought ye to have done, AND not to leave the "OTHER" undone.

In other words - do BOTH aspects! Compare this with the parallel passage in Luke 11:42, the Lord made it clear that they had the uncanny attitude to "pass over" judgment and the love of God.

TV01, the question now would be: was the Lord making 'judgement and the love of God' REDUNDANT? This is the one question one has to settle before insisting He was making the other aspect "redundant". So, if the Lord was NOT making redundant the matters of "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42), why then would anyone want to do so? And if He did not make the first aspect redundant, why would anyone want to make it read as such, when the Lord clearly said: "and not to leave the other undone" ?

You see HOW and WHY you cannot use either Matt. 23:23 or Luke 11:42 as proof texts for commiting TITHES to redundancy. If you make the "OTHER" redundant, then you'd have to make "THESE" redundant as well! The Lord never suggested at all that only one aspect was approved, while the other was negated.

This is why I offered that the interpretation of Matt. 23:23 to make TITHES redundant is simply untennable.

TV01,

TV01:

The Lord fulfilled the law. He did not champion it, or in any way seek to re-inforce its applicability. The law has "righteous requirements", the problem being that the physical works of the law alone could never meet that requirement. In the era of grace, it morphs from a problem to a catch 22 situation, as actually trying to attain to righteousness by law, means you cannot at once attain to it by grace.

The Lord did not predicate the "righteouseness of the Law" or the "righteousness of faith" on Matt. 23:23. He simply spoke of the essential matters of the LAW that were timeless - "judgment, mercy, and faith". There is not one time at all where a law or commandment was enacted to negate these essential matters - UNLESS you want to void FAITH and MERCY on the basis of the LAW - the very thing which Rom. 3:31 expressly forbids you and me!!

TV01:

3. Romans. 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. "

Pertinent verse, but again one must be able to align it in isolation, context and the overall picture.

Is it the letter of the law that is being established? No, no, no. It’s the righteous requirement of it.

The Lord most certainly was not campaigning for the "letter of the Law" in Matt. 23:23 - and it is clear in the emphatic statement He made as regards "the weightier matters of the Law".

TV01:

The law was a tutor to bring us to grace. The “intent” of the law remains, but it is not by the letter/works of the law that we satisfy this. It’s by grace through faith, by the Spirit of The Lord.

I don't want to be tedious to you this afternoon - neither of us would need that. But here, let me share an essential matter with you:

Grace did not begin in the NT - please go back to Gen. 6:8 - "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."

Lot also was said to have found grace and mercy in God's sight (Gen. 19:19).

Even Moses also found grace in God's sight - Exo. 33:12 and 17

Ezra in his prayer recognized that God gave grace to the remnant of Israel - Ezra 9:8

The law was a tutor/schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ (not "to grace", as you said - see Gal. 3:24). But though even you could recognize that the "intent" of the Law 'remains', the point here is that TITHE was not an 'intent' of the Law. HOW? Because, the Law was not ratified on the basis of tithing, or to make tithing its mainstay! Second, as you earlier agreed, TITHING did not originate with the Law, and therefore the Law could not then make "redundant" what it did not originate!

Tithing did not "add" to anyone's righteousness - either in the OT or the NT. What did it do? It simply was a response in worship to God's sovereignty in richly BLESSING His people. This is the case in Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek; and that is also the case in the celebration feast of tithers in Deuteronomy 12 and 14.

How then did I make reference at one time to 2 Cor. 9:10 in connection with the "blessings" of tithing? Notice that verse did not say that it increases one's "righteousness"; but rather it did say categorically that it increases the "FRUITS" of one's righteousness!

TV01:

The Lord was showing that tithing the smallest herbs to anal degree of accuracy would not engender righteousness and in any event, accuracy or even adherence was not the point, loving God and thy neighbour was, hence the reference to judgement, mercy and faith.

As I pointed out earlier, "engendering" anything was not the point the Lord was making in Matt. 23:23. When people read such ideas into that text, they lose the whole value of what the Lord meant to cover. He clearly denounced their hypocrisy in their partial obedience; and at the same time called for full obedience to the essential matters as well as the "other" aspect - TITHES!

TV01:

So the message IMHO was this “Yes you should have tithed – for you are Jews, under the law, and said law is still in effect – but you have tragically failed to see the intent of the law – justice, mercy, faith etc – Thus presuming yourself righteous because you fulfilled the letter of the law to the tiniest degree – can you imagine accurately tithing herbs as tiny as mint or cumin – is hollow, as that is a works based attempt to attain to righteousness via adherence and accuracy, which although fulfilling the letter, does not the intent.

No, no, no and no. That is not the point at all. I do appreciate your persuasion; but I fail to see that is the point the Lord was calling for in that text. He was not making it an issue of "you are Jews under the Law" etc., etc. He was denouncing their hypocrisy while calling their hearts to a proper obedience in both aspects of the essential matters He set forth. To void "THESE" is to void the "OTHER".

Cheers.

TV01:

Again whilst you attention to detail is commendable, it is the wrong approach here. To try and find a principle for every ordinance of the law and translate it into the NT, would be cumbersome and unmanageable. Not to mention that that approach leaves it subject to many interpretations - welcome to over 30'000 Christian sects and counting. A birds eye view of the laws intent bests serves here, and enables us to understand this;

I think when you go through the repostes above, then you'll see just HOW, WHY and WHERE you're mixing up issues. My persuasions are not borne out of "sects" or seeking to add more to those already set up (not to mention that whichever one you belong to is as much a SECT as you allege against others). Please face the issues being discussed and leave out the unnecessary insinuations.

The issues we're trying to discuss from Matt. 23:23 do not play out the way you're assuming they do. If there's anything else that persuades you that Matt. 23:23 actually preaches a REDUNDANCY of either "THESE" (the weightier matters of the Law) or the "OTHER" (tithes), please share.

Just bear in mind that, to void one aspect in that verse is to void the other aspect as well. To make "redundant" THESE is to make redundant the "OTHER"!! There's no partial interpretation that allows for only one aspect - for that would be tantamount to what the Lord Jesus denounced - HYPOCRISY!!
Regards.

Pilgrim.1,

First, did you actually read, digest and try to understand my post or are you playing some hard to fathom joke and having a laugh? I needed to say that, get it off my chest .

You may not know this, but you're coming even closer to confirming my points. Yes, you certainly would disagree about that, but like I often say, here's HOW, WHY and WHERE I'm persuaded that's the case:

Overall I am saying tithing is not taught, encouraged or commanded in the NT, you are saying the opposite. So let me categorically affirm that I have not moved in the least, have you?

The 'bigger picture' presented in boths sides is the very thing we have once and again been trying to make you guys come to terms with. We have sounded this again and again, but it seems you keep missing the picture here and mixing it up with the idea that "the LAW" has been made wholesale redundant, and as such, there's nothing in its element that speaks to the Christian today. That is simply not true - and it was for that reason that I actually took time to outline the essential features of what is represented by the term "the LAW" in the NT.

You couldn’t have stated it much better. The works based keeping of the law is redundant. In Matthew 23:23, tithe was but a metaphor for the whole written code, as was circumcision in other instances. Having said that the intent – righteous requirement - of the law justice, mercy, faith etc is still very much required, only now it is not attained by slavish devotion to a written code, but by grace. Two more points here;

1. You taxonomic approach to “The Law in the NT” avails nothing
2. You ignored the references to Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14

And two more verses. The written code is by works and for the flesh – in which no good thing dewells – and can never make you perfect before God. Fulfillment of the written code is nothing more than flesh glorying.

Colossians 2:14 - having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 8:4 ~ that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Okay, first I'd like you to please keep that constantly in mind so that we don't make the mistake of doing such anymore. Since you'd have to agree the Lord did not denounce or disparage tithes, please do not assume to do so either.

A moot point, as I have never done so. I have spelt out severally my stance on tithing for NTC. As an individual thing it's permissable within the liberty we have in Christ. No over and above blessings if you do and no curses if you don't. End of story. My denunciation has been of the attempt to establish a “Tithing Doctrine” either by command, or as “A God given part of NT worship”, both wrong. To a lesser degree, possibly those who proclaim such, as while some may do so out of ignorance, others do it for material gain, hence my reference to the “cloak for covetousness.

Look again at that text in Matt. 23:23 - did the Lord hint anywhere about making anyone "righteous" by the LAW? Or did He intend to suggest there that He had His eyes on the 'dispensation of the Spirit led, grace filled life' that even the Jews could not have understood at that point?

If you think that was the case, wouldn't it be unfair for Him to have been speaking to them about things they had no capacity under the old covenant to grasp? Surely, that would muddle thinsg up. WHY? Because Scripture bears testimony that no one (including His disciples) could have fathomed anything about what the Lord came to establish UNTIL He had risen from the dead. See John 20:9 and Luke 24:45 - ('for as yet they knew not the Scripture'. . . 'Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures') and 1 Cor. 2:8.

Good point, but it is wrongly aimed.

1. It has been explained repeatedly by several contributors, that The Lord was addressing those under the law, the whole reason why He said they should have tithed, whilst not ignoring the intent of the law.

2. We are discussing in relation to those not under the law – NTC – as such we have a full canon and greater insight to the Lords intent in Matthew 23:23 and into the completeness of His work.

TV01, the question now would be: was the Lord making 'judgement and the love of God' REDUNDANT? This is the one question one has to settle before insisting He was making the other aspect "redundant". So, if the Lord was NOT making redundant the matters of "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42), why then would anyone want to do so? And if He did not make the first aspect redundant, why would anyone want to make it read as such, when the Lord clearly said: "and not to leave the other undone"?

Once again, the intent – the righteous requirement – of the law is not redundant, but a written code as the means to effect it is. Tithing is code, justice, mercy and faith are intent. This is where you should pay attention to detail. A written law cannot make you love someone.

“Thou shallt not kill; I don’t kill because I don’t want to suffer the consequences or the wrath of God. That is written code. It won’t make you love, just possibly prevent you from murdering. Further, if you attempt to claim righteousness on that point, you are duty bound to fulfill every other written requirement.

For completeness sake I repeat, please distinguish between the letter and the intent. Letter is tithing, circumcision. Ritual that will not in or of itself make you righteous or holy or change your core nature.

You see HOW and WHY you cannot use either Matt. 23:23 or Luke 11:42 as proof texts for commiting TITHES to redundancy. If you make the "OTHER" redundant, then you'd have to make "THESE" redundant as well! The Lord never suggested at all that only one aspect was approved, while the other was negated.

This is why I offered that the interpretation of Matt. 23:23 to make TITHES redundant is simply untennable.

I concede your point here. Tithing is not made redundant by that verse. It is swept away with the rest of the written law. The point to note, is that in as much as it was part of the written code - as that verse clearly demonstrates - it in no way perpetuates it for NTC.

God bless
TV

Those that cares about tithe should pay.

TITHES REVIEW

The custom of giving tithes reaches back into unknown antiquity.

It is mentioned in Genesis 14, without anything to indicate that it was something newly instituted.
Just as Abraham is there represented as offering tithes of the spoils of the enemy to the royal priest, Melchisedech, so in Genesis 28, Jacob is recorded as giving a tithe of all his possessions to the Lord.

Under the Mosaic Law the payment of tithes was made obligatory.

The Hebrews are commanded to offer to God the tenth part of the produce of the fields, of the fruits of the trees, and the firstborn of oxen and of sheep (Leviticus 27:30; Deuteronomy 14:22).
In Deuteronomy there is a mention not only of an annual tithe, but also of a full tithe to be paid once every three years. While it was to God Himself that the tithes had to be paid, yet we read (Numbers 18:21) that He transfers them to His sacred ministers: "I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel for a possession, for the ministry wherewith they serve me in the tabernacle of the covenant.
However, the payment of tithes was also a civil custom. They were payable to the Hebrew kings and to the rulers of Babylon, and they are mentioned among the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and later the Mohammedans.

In the Christian Church, as those who serve the altar should live by the altar (1 Corinthians 9:13), provision of some kind had necessarily to be made for the sacred ministers.

In the beginning this was supplied by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful. In the course of time, however, as the Church expanded and various institutions arose, it became necessary to make laws which would insure the proper and permanent support of the clergy.

The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom.
The Church looked on this payment as "of divine law, since tithes were instituted not by man but by the Lord Himself" (C. 14, X de decim. III, 30). As regards the civil power, the Christian Roman emperors granted the right to churches of retaining a portion of the produce of certain lands, but the earliest instance of the enforcement of the payment of ecclesiastical tithes by civil law is to be found in the capitularies of Charlemagne, at the end of the eighth century.

English law very early recognized the tithe, as in the reigns of Athelstan, Edgar, and Canute before the Norman Conquest. In English statute law proper, however, the first mention of tithes is to be found in the Statute of Westminister of 1285.

Tithes are of three kinds: predial, or that derived from the annual crops; mixed, or what arises from things nourished by the land, as cattle, milk, cheese, wool; and personal or the result of industry or occupation.
Predial tithes were generally called great tithes, and mixed and personal tithes, small tithes. Natural substances having no annual increase are not tithable, nor are wild animals. When property is inherited or donated, it is not subject to the law of tithes, but its natural increase is. There are many exempted from the paying of tithes: spiritual corporations, the owners of uncultivated lands, those who have acquired lawful prescription, or have obtained a legal renunciation, or received a privilege from the pope.

At first, the tithe was payable to the bishop, but later the right passed by common law to parish priests.

Abuses soon crept in.

The right to receive tithes was granted to princes and nobles, even hereditarily, by ecclesiastics in return for protection or eminent services, and this species of impropriation became so intolerable that the Third Council of Lateran (1179) decreed that no alienation of tithes to laymen was permissible without the consent of the pope. In the time of Gregory VIII, a so-called Saladin tithe was instituted, which was payable by all who did not take part personally in the crusade to recover the Holy Land.

At the present time, in most countries where some species of tithes still exist, as in England (for the Established Church), in Austria, and Germany, the payment has been changed into a rent-charge.
In English-speaking countries generally, as far as Catholics are concerned, the clergy receive no tithes. As a consequence, other means have had to be adopted to support the clergy and maintain the ecclesiastical institutions and to substitute other equivalent payments in lieu of tithes.
Soglia (Institut, Canon, II, 12) says "The law of tithes can never be abrogated by prescription or custom, if the ministers of the Church have no suitable and sufficient provision from other sources; because then the natural and divine law, which can neither be abrogated not antiquate, commands that the tithe be paid." In some parts of Canada, the tithe is still recognized by civil law, and the Fourth Council of Quebec (1868) declared that its payment is binding in conscience of the faithful.






Lay Tithes
(1) secular tithes, which subjects on crown-estates were obliged to pay to princes, or tenants, or vassals on leased lands or lands held in fief to their landlords (decimæ origine laicales).

(2) ecclesiastical tithes, which in the course of time became alienated from the Church to lay proprietors (decimæ ex post laicales s. sæcularizatæ). There is question here only of the latter. In the secularizations initiated under the Merovingians the transference of ecclesiastical property and their tithes or of the tithes alone to laymen was effected. In subsequent times church lands with their tithes, or the tithes alone, were bestowed even by bishops and abbots on laymen to secure servants, vassals, protectors against violence and defenders of their civil rights.

Other church property with tithes, or the tithes alone, were forcibly seized by laymen. Finally, the development of churches, once the property of private individuals, into parish churches subject to the bishop gave rise to the landlord appropriating the tithes due to the parish church. The church soon took measures to repress this spoliation, beginning as early as the ninth century at the Synod of Diedenhofen (844; cap. iii, 5) and that of Beauvais (845; cap. iii, 6). Gregory VII revived in a stricter form these old canons at the Autumn Synod of 1078, demanding that the laity should return all tithes to the Church, even though they had been given them by bishops, kings, or other persons, and declared all who refused obedience to be sacrilegi (C. 1, C. XVI, q. 7). Succeeding popes and synods repeated this order, declaring that Church tithes to be iuris divini (C. 14, X, de decim., III, 30); that, as the inalienable source of income of the parish church, they could not be transferred to another church or monastery (C. 30, X, de decim., III,30); that they could not be acquired by a layman through prescription or inheritance, or otherwise alienated.

But it was quite impossible for the Church to recover the tithes possessed for centuries by laymen, to whom in fact they had been in many cases transferred by the Church itself. Laymen gave then, in preference to the monastery instead of the parish church, but this became thenceforth subject to the approval of the bishop (C. 3, X, do privil., III 33). The decision of the Lateran Council (1179), forbidding the alienation of the church tithes possessed by the laity, and demanding their return to the Church (C. 19, X. de decim., III, 30) was interpreted to mean that, those ecclesiastical tithes, which up to the time of this council were in possession of 1aymen, might be retained by them, but no further transference should take place (C. 25, X, de decim., III, 30, c. 2, A in Vito, h.t., III, 13). But even this cou1d not be carried out. There thus existed side by side with church tithes a quantity of lay tithes; the latter were dealt. with by secular courts as being purely secular rights, while ecclesiastical law was applied to ecclesiastical tithes. However, certain, of the obligations imposed by the (once) ecclesiastical tithes continued to bind the proprietor, even though he were a layman. Thus in the case of church buildings the Council of Trent declared that patrons and all "qui fructus aliquos ex dictis ecclesiis provenientes percipiunt" were bound secondarily to defray the cost of repair (Sess. XXI, De ref., c. vii; see FABRICA ECCLESLE). When there is a doubt as to whether the tithes in quetion are ecclesiatical or lay, the reasonable presumption is that they are ecclesiastical.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09095b.htm

Pilgrim.1

The Lord did not predicate the "righteouseness of the Law" or the "righteousness of faith" on Matt. 23:23. He simply spoke of the essential matters of the LAW that were timeless - "judgment, mercy, and faith". There is not one time at all where a law or commandment was enacted to negate these essential matters - UNLESS you want to void FAITH and MERCY on the basis of the LAW - the very thing which Rom. 3:31 expressly forbids you and me!!

Please ponder this a little more. Justice, mercy, and faith are indeed essential. But not attained to by a written code, which was what was demonstrated by law in the OT.

In as much as we say or can use law in NT parlance, it’s the “Law of the Heart”, not a written law of ordinances.

Please see the continuity in this from OT to NT from Law to Grace.

Jeremiah 31:33 - But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 8:10 - For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 10:16 - "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"

The intent of the law is unchanging the way it is achieved is different.

Grace did not begin in the NT - please go back to Gen. 6:8 - "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."

Lot also was said to have found grace and mercy in God's sight (Gen. 19:19).

Even Moses also found grace in God's sight - Exo. 33:12 and 17

Ezra in his prayer recognized that God gave grace to the remnant of Israel - Ezra 9:8

Grace is beauty for another time perhaps? Suffice to say here is that the word/term “grace” has various meanings and renderings.

The grace of God in Christ Jesus NT style, includes elements of saving, enabling, scourging and teaching . For the most part the OT examples you have referenced merely mean “favour”.

The law was a tutor/schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ (not "to grace", as you said - see Gal. 3:24). But though even you could recognize that the "intent" of the Law 'remains', the point here is that TITHE was not an 'intent' of the Law. HOW? Because, the Law was not ratified on the basis of tithing, or to make tithing its mainstay! Second, as you earlier agreed, TITHING did not originate with the Law, and therefore the Law could not then make "redundant" what it did not originate!

Point taken, but the grace of God is in Him. And as referenced immediately above, I refer not just to grace as favour.

You chase the tail of your own argument if you say “tithe was not an intent of the law”. That is my point exactly, hence it’s redundancy as purely written ordinance.

More tail chewing on your point re the “origins of tithing”. I aalso mentioned this earlier. Tithing as part of a written code is in no way applicable to NTC. If you agree that, why do you try and buttress you position by reference to a written code.

If you endorse it based on pre-law events/practice, please build your case without recourse to a written code.

Tithing did not "add" to anyone's righteousness - either in the OT or the NT. What did it do? It simply was a response in worship to God's sovereignty in richly BLESSING His people. This is the case in Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek; and that is also the case in the celebration feast of tithers in Deuteronomy 12 and 14.

Stop that “Worship response” gimmick already! And in as much as the Deuteronomy reference is a response, it was codified in law.

How then did I make reference at one time to 2 Cor. 9:10 in connection with the "blessings" of tithing? Notice that verse did not say that it increases one's "righteousness"; but rather it did say categorically that it increases the "FRUITS" of one's righteousness!

No one could honestly claim to see tithing in view here. It has to be read into the text. And forcibly at that.

As I pointed out earlier, "engendering" anything was not the point the Lord was making in Matt. 23:23. When people read such ideas into that text, they lose the whole value of what the Lord meant to cover. He clearly denounced their hypocrisy in their partial obedience; and at the same time called for full obedience to the essential matters as well as the "other" aspect - TITHES!

They were not NTC, they were Jews under the law and bound to keep it. You keep relentlessly overlooking this pivotal fact. He told them to keep the written law and be mindful of it’s intent. Do NTC have to keep a written law?

No, no, no and no. That is not the point at all. I do appreciate your persuasion; but I fail to see that is the point the Lord was calling for in that text. He was not making it an issue of "you are Jews under the Law" etc., etc. He was denouncing their hypocrisy while calling their hearts to a proper obedience in both aspects of the essential matters He set forth. To void "THESE" is to void the "OTHER".

Yes, yes, yes and yes! Whilst your insight is partly right, it is incomplete in not incorporating the dispensation and era the addresses belonged to. Please stop wilfully ignoring it.

God bless
TV

Hi again TV01,

Hmmm. . . let me respond from the most recent and trace it back upwards.

TV01:

Pilgrim.1

Please ponder this a little more. Justice, mercy, and faith are indeed essential. But not attained to by a written code, which was what was demonstrated by law in the OT.

In as much as we say or can use law in NT parlance, it’s the “Law of the Heart”, not a written law of ordinances.

Please see the continuity in this from OT to NT from Law to Grace.

I really don't share this view of interpretation for the simple reason that it confuses the issues of what exactly is "the Law" as used in its various contexts in the NT. God wrote His Law in our hearts (Heb. 8:10) does not mean that the people under the Old Covenant never had the Law in their hearts as well. See --

Deut. 6:5 & 6 -- "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart"

Psa. 37:31 -- "The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide."

Psa. 40:8 -- "I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart".

Psa. 119:80 -- "Let my heart be sound in thy statutes; that I be not ashamed."

We really need to settle down and understand the meaning of "the LAW" as used in the NT to point to the the various things which I already have shared earlier.

TV01:

The intent of the law is unchanging the way it is achieved is different.

Grace is beauty for another time perhaps? Suffice to say here is that the word/term “grace” has various meanings and renderings.

If you could see that, why is it difficult then to see that the same thing applies to the "various meanings" of the term 'the LAW'? I'm glad you saw that pointer - I left it as a teaser, actually. And the one reason why I did so was to help you see that whatever terms we come across in the NT should be carefully examined in its context. Smart guy.

TV01:

The grace of God in Christ Jesus NT style, includes elements of saving, enabling, scourging and teaching . For the most part the OT examples you have referenced merely mean “favour”.

If you want me to expound upon 'grace' in the OT clearly involving all those elements and more, I could.

TV01:

Point taken, but the grace of God is in Him. And as referenced immediately above, I refer not just to grace as favour.

Glad you could see that.

TV01:

You chase the tail of your own argument if you say “tithe was not an intent of the law”. That is my point exactly, hence it’s redundancy as purely written ordinance.

Okay, in my subsequent repostes, I'll help you see this point a bit more clearly.

TV01:

More tail chewing on your point re the “origins of tithing”. I aalso mentioned this earlier. Tithing as part of a written code is in no way applicable to NTC. If you agree that, why do you try and buttress you position by reference to a written code.

When did I predicate TITHE on the LAW? Would you recall that I challenged the idea that people often want to tie TITHES to the LAW so that, that way it helps them to more easily do away with it because they can then throw the LAW wholesale behind them?

I'll come back yet to this point in my next post.

TV01:

If you endorse it based on pre-law events/practice, please build your case without recourse to a written code.

I could do that - and I could as well ask you to build your case for any other moral and spiritual issue without recourse to the "written code" - so that even when you argue aagainst the place of women in the Church, you should NEVER refer to 1 Cor. 14:34 ever again!

See, you can just make tight ropes and ask others to walk on them while you want to roll on broad street! Be willing to be open for discussion; not passing laws as to which books one should quote from or which he/she should not reference.

TV01:

Stop that “Worship response” gimmick already! And in as much as the Deuteronomy reference is a response, it was codified in law.

Please don't get me started. I have the facts to hand where you even used it! So, if you're beginning to have a tight chest already, let me know.

TV01:

No one could honestly claim to see tithing in view here. It has to be read into the text. And forcibly at that.

Rather, you're trying so hard to remove it from the text where they appear and change ts meaning completely into "code" and "intent" so it becomes easier for you to dance away from the facts.

TV01:

They were not NTC, they were Jews under the law and bound to keep it. You keep relentlessly overlooking this pivotal fact. He told them to keep the written law and be mindful of it’s intent. Do NTC have to keep a written law?

If you want me to show you how many things the Lord addressed to those under the Law that even you TV01 today can't deny is for the Christian, please let me know. I'd like you tof first exhaust yourself on this point before I point them out to you. Just let me know how far you can beat that mat around until you come back sleeping on it.

TV01:

Yes, yes, yes and yes! Whilst your insight is partly right, it is incomplete in not incorporating the dispensation and era the addresses belonged to. Please stop wilfully ignoring it.

Ahh - there! Your problem is dispensations, right? Better days ahead. . hehe!! Boy, it would be such a pleasure aking you across the red sea on that - if thou canst have the faith to endure it!

Anyhow, next post coming soon.

TV01,

TV01:

First, did you actually read, digest and try to understand my post or are you playing some hard to fathom joke and having a laugh? I needed to say that, get it off my chest

Well, I read through and responded from what I gathered.

TV01:

Overall I am saying tithing is not taught, encouraged or commanded in the NT, you are saying the opposite. So let me categorically affirm that I have not moved in the least, have you?

My position remains intact.

TV01:

You couldn’t have stated it much better. The works based keeping of the law is redundant. In Matthew 23:23, tithe was but a metaphor for the whole written code, as was circumcision in other instances. Having said that the intent – righteous requirement - of the law justice, mercy, faith etc is still very much required, only now it is not attained by slavish devotion to a written code, but by grace.

Let's examine carefully.

(a) if you're debating a works-based keeping of the Law, that was not the intent of the Lord in Matt. 23:23. He was not chiding them for keeping the law by "works"; and it is clear what actually He was remonstrating them for - simply for their HYPOCRISY at being partial at obeying the WORD.

(b) second, the Lord did not speak of TITHES in that verse as a metaphor for the Law anymore than 'circumcision' was another metaphor for the same Law. It then would be begging the question of how many 'metaphors' there are for the Law in the entire Bible! TITHES were never used as a metaphor or any other figure of speech for the LAW - and there's not a single verse that defends the idea that it does. If I'm mistaken about that, I'd be willing to consider it.

(c) to speak of making the Law "redundant" and yet keep or retain its "intent" is to send away the groom while retaining his shoes!

Okay, silly me there - but the point is that, it roles out a whole new argument of asking people under the Law to keep the "intent" of the Law when clearly you argue that such "intent" could not have been attained except by grace! The one question then would be: what's the purpose in asking people to keep the "intent" of the Law while withholding the requirement (grace) for them to do so? Did God give them the Law for a "slavish devotion"?

No, these matters you've presented are far removed from Matt. 23:23, because the point the Lord sought to make is straightforward. Two sets of issues are there presented:

¤ (a) ye "tithe" - Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42

¤ (b) ye "omitted" (Matt. 23:23) or "pass over" (Luke 11:42) - the weightier matters of the Law

After remonstrating against them on their hypocrisy to keep (a) and omit (b), His conclusion was that they "keep" BOTH and "omit" NONE:

"THESE" ought ye to have done, AND not to leave the "OTHER" undone.

Let me remind you again: to VOID one aspect - (a) - was to VOID the 'other' aspect - (b) - as well!!

On what grounds precisely would anyone be calling for obedience to only (a) while rejecting (b)? To do that is to fail again into the same mistake that the Lord warned against - the HYPOCRISY of partial obedience!

TV01:

Two more points here;

1. You taxonomic approach to “The Law in the NT” avails nothing

Okay. Let's see you fault them.

TV01:

2. You ignored the references to Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14

I did not.

Rom. 13:8
'Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.'

Gal. 5:14
'For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'

I might not have quoted them earlier; but even so, those two verses in no way establish your argument that TITHES are therefore made redundant from Matt. 23:23.

If your argument here spins off to the question of WHO actually fulfills "the Law", then I'd have to ask you to make a choice between (a) Christ fulfilling the Law for us; or (b) we ourselves fulfilling the Law; or (c) both Christ and we ourselves fulfilling "the Law" - which last term is an impossible position to assume!

Not only so, but please understand that the whole Law hangs on TWO premises instead of ONE! Jesus made this aboslutely clear in Matt. 22:37-40 when He stated that "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" in reference to loving God and loving one's neighbour! So, if one supposes that Gal. 5:14 is pointing to an assumption that WE have fulfilled "the Law" by simply loving people, we would still have to come back to the question of loving God!

No, don't snatch Gal. 5:14 and use it out of context in this discussion. You'd only be inviting issues beyond the immediate concerns before us.

You see, just borrowing a few verses here and there and pasting them to smooth ideas does not carry any weight in the whole counsel of God. One has to bear things contextually - and it is this very thing that brings about an understanding of those verses that might seem to be in contrast to others! Neither Rom. 13:8 and Galatians 5:14 do NOT negate TITHES!

TV01,

TV01:

And two more verses. The written code is by works and for the flesh – in which no good thing dewells – and can never make you perfect before God. Fulfillment of the written code is nothing more than flesh glorying.

Colossians 2:14 - having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 8:4 ~ that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Let me quote you: "Fulfillment of the written code is nothing more than flesh glorying."

Please ask yourself what CHRIST came to fulfill!! Was it not that same written code He came to fulfill, which He clearly pronounced as such that no "jot" or "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the Law until all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:18)? Was Christ seeking "flesh glorying" when He came to fulfill the written Law?

You see, we have to be careful when making statements! When the apostles preached, they made it clear that men could not be justified from all things stipulated in the Law of Moses (Acts 13:39). They also recognized that the commandments were ordained unto LIFE, and not unto death (Rom. 7:10).

But here's what was wrong in the experiences of men in the flesh: what was it really that the Law could not do? It clearly could not condemn sin in the flesh - and that was one other reason why God sent His Son (Rom. 8:3). It was on that basis that we could speak of the verse you cited - Rom. 8:4 >> "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Please notice something here: the text you quoted does not suppose at all that Christians walk after "the Law". The two things contrasted are walking after "the flesh" and walking after "the Spirit"! When you carefully study what is presented as the "righteous requirement" of the Law, you would not for an instance mistake it as pointing to a "written code" which is nothing more than "flesh glorying". Be that as it may, do not mix up the 'requirements' for the 'written code' - they are not the same.

TV01:

Okay, first I'd like you to please keep that constantly in mind so that we don't make the mistake of doing such anymore. Since you'd have to agree the Lord did not denounce or disparage tithes, please do not assume to do so either.

A moot point, as I have never done so.

Please, be honest - you have done so. The one thing you have NEVER done is to give me a verse for your denunciations - and I don't fancy this constant denials you keep branding about.

TV01:

I have spelt out severally my stance on tithing for NTC. As an individual thing it's permissable within the liberty we have in Christ.

My points have been crystal clear from the onset. I never made it a matter of COERCION, MANDATE, COMPULSION, or FORCE! It is because you have tried to champion that default position and tried to forcefully read it into other people's posts, that's why we have stayed on just one point until the discussion went downslope. Several times I pointed out that TITHING was a matter of WILLINGNESS from the heart - never a matter of the MANDATE you forcefully tried to make out of it.

TV01:

No over and above blessings if you do and no curses if you don't. End of story.

That's not true. Those who give, the Lord clearly stated they will be blessed over those who do not - read it again:

2 Cor. 9:6, 8 & 10

(6) But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully
shall reap also bountifully.

(8 ) And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things,
may abound to every good work

(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

You cannot keep denying the clear statements in these verses and others that point out that the giver receives blessings that non-givers would not have.

On the other hand, I've not argued to call a curse on anyone who does not give. My persuasion has always been simple and straightforward: if you don't believe in TITHING, I'm not commissioned to fight you simply because I believe in its power and revelation! I've said so and reminded you several times about the same. It is your restlessness over this matter that makes you once and again allege that tithers are "BINDING" people to a 'man-made' religion - which I also challenged, and found you unable to simply answer the questions I offered thereto.

TV01:

My denunciation has been of the attempt to establish a “Tithing Doctrine” either by command, or as “A God given part of NT worship”, both wrong. To a lesser degree, possibly those who proclaim such, as while some may do so out of ignorance, others do it for material gain, hence my reference to the “cloak for covetousness.

Rubbish, TV01. You alleged that 'cloak for covetouesness' several times against me because you were unable to defend your assertions - and I had to ask that you refrain, seeing that I have never asked you for a farthing! Truth be told: your denunciations was not of any attempt - you made a categorical statement, which up until now you've NOT been able to defend; and trying to dress it up is not helping matters. Please have the humility to acknowledge that you acted wrongly - and desist from such!

If you felt that others believe in tithe out of ignorance, have you been able to answer our questions? Why try making such pronouncements when you have not been able to simply defend your assertions?

I'd beg you to refrain from trying to dress up this blotch - it's of no use.

TV01:

1. It has been explained repeatedly by several contributors, that The Lord was addressing those under the law, the whole reason why He said they should have tithed, whilst not ignoring the intent of the law.

The Lord was indeed addressing those under the Law - and if that is how you want to force it, then I ask you to show me if His disciples at that time were not under the Law.

I don't think this excuse is helping matters. The simple thing the LORD did there was denounce their hypocrisy and then call for full obedience to "THESE" and the "OTHER". And if you want to void "THESE" along with the Law, then you'd also have to void the "OTHER" as well along with the Law! To retain one and negate the other is to do the very thing the Lord denounce - HYPOCRISY!

TV01

TV01:

2. We are discussing in relation to those not under the law – NTC – as such we have a full canon and greater insight to the Lords intent in Matthew 23:23 and into the completeness of His work.

WHERE in the full canon as such did the TITHE become redundant? If you can provide a verse for that, then also would the same canon negate the weightier matters of the Law!

As long as you try to make them stand as either this OR that, you'd continue to find it a hard task defending your redundance of one in order to keep the other!

TV01:

Once again, the intent – the righteous requirement – of the law is not redundant, but a written code as the means to effect it is. Tithing is code, justice, mercy and faith are intent. This is where you should pay attention to detail. A written law cannot make you love someone.

This is funny, but excuse me laughing. Take a closer look at what you just posted!

TV01, the Lord did not mean for us to infer from His words that "Tithing is a code" while the others are the intent! That is playing partial obedience to His stringent warning!

Now, even if we allowed that TITHING was a "code", what did the Lord ask for in Matt. 23:23? Did He say for us to do away with "the code"? If that were true, then you're saying loudly that the Lord asked us to LEAVE the "OTHERS" undone! Is that what He asked you to do? Let me outline them for easier reference:

¤ (A) the 'CODE' - [tithes/tithing]

¤ (B) the INTENT - [weightier matters of the Law: judgement, mercy and faith]

¤¤¤ So, which of the two elements did He ask you to retain?

¤¤¤ Which one of them did He ask you to make redundant?

If you void one [(A)], then you'd have to void the other [(B)] - because the Lord voided NEITHER of them!!   This is His word:

¤¤ "THESE" ought ye to have done  -- (A) the 'CODE'

¤¤ AND not to leave the "OTHER" undone -  (B) the INTENT

So, if you argue to keep/retain "the intent" and make "the code" redundant, are you not really misinterpreting the Lord's WORD in that verse?

Just in case, you're still in doubt, simply check the last part of that verse again from ANY translation. Here's the part of both [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt.%2023.23;&version=51;]Matt. 23:23[/url] and [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2011.42;&version=51;]Luke 11:42[/url] from the NLT - it says just precisely the same thing:

(NLT - [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt.%2023.23;&version=51;]New Living Translation[/url])
'You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.'

So, I ask you again TV01 - which of the two aspects in that verse did the Lord ask you to make redundant? You try to void one, you would have to void the other along with it!

TV01:

“Thou shallt not kill; I don’t kill because I don’t want to suffer the consequences or the wrath of God. That is written code. It won’t make you love, just possibly prevent you from murdering. Further, if you attempt to claim righteousness on that point, you are duty bound to fulfill every other written requirement.

Sorry, but that analogy is weak; and if anything, it brings us to the same thing - you still have to obey what it says - do not MURDER!

Which again is NOT what the Lord was pointing out in Matt. 23:23. "THESE" you should DO: and the "OTHERS" you should DO as well!!

That is the message of that verse - and not a delineation along the lines of a "code" and "intent".

TV01:

For completeness sake I repeat, please distinguish between the letter and the intent. Letter is tithing, circumcision. Ritual that will not in or of itself  make you righteous or holy or change your core nature.

Excuse me, I NEVER said that Tithing would make anyone "RIGHTEOUS"; nor have I wrapped it around 'letter and intent'. If the "letter" is to tithe, where is then the 'intent' not to do so? I'm sorry, but you're only making things complicated for yourself even more; because you're forcefully trying to read issues into that verse that you cannot defend.

That's why I keep asking you: "which of the two aspects in that verse did the Lord ask you to make redundant?"

If you void one, then you void the other! Making it a matter of "letter and intent" is simply saying that the Lord asked you to keep BOTH - because He did NOT void either of the elements He mentioned in that verse!

TV01:

I concede your point here. Tithing is not made redundant by that verse. It is swept away with the rest of the written law. The point to note, is that in as much as it was part of the written code - as that verse clearly demonstrates - it in no way perpetuates it for NTC.

That would be a difficult one for you to establish, because you'd still have to find the verse that says it was "swept away" with the rest of the written code!

If that was the inference to be deducted from Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42, then sweeping one aspect means that you'd sweep away the other aspect as well - which leaves you with NOTHING at all; because you would have "swept away" the weightier matters as well!

      Christ simply pointed out this:

       [list]
[li]THESE do[/li]   . . . (a)
[/list]

[list]
[li]the OTHERS do also[/li] . . . (b)
[/list]

    Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42

(NLT - [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt.%2023.23;&version=51;]New Living Translation[/url])

'You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.'


If the Lord asked you to make "THESE" redudant, please come simply write it out for your readers to see the point.

And if He asked to you make the OTHERS redudant as well, please write it out as well.

At this point, you'd only make your readers see in print how well you can mis-"interpret" clear statements!!


Warmest regards.

@ Pilgrim.1,

If you were a young lad, I'd label you as rascally and send you off with a cuff around the ear. Being a younger member of the weaker sex, I have to be a little more tender. But boy you are one querulous woman. Haba!

1. When are you going to admit that The Lord was not addressing NTC in Matthew 23:23 and the parallel verse?

2. When are you going to stop claiming the tthe pre-dates the law, whilst at the same time trying to support it by recourse to same? Expecially when it is clear that we are no longer governed by a written code.

3. When are you going to stop championing Moses (law), for NTC and allow them thier liberty in Christ (grace)?

4. When are you going to understand that fulfilling and/or establishing the law in NT terms is not to revive the written code - being counterintuitive as it was nailed to the cross - but to fulfill its righteous requirements in those who are led by the Spirit by grace?

5. When wil you accept that the NT clearly teaches that to keep any aspect of the law is to be bound to keep it all. Same theme clearly outlines that to aspoire to a law based righteousness leads to a fall from grace?

6. Why do you think that be ignoring the obvious and forcefully reading your interpretaion into scripture and then repeating it ad-infinitum, that the facts will change?


Quote from: TV01 on Yesterday at 04:14:01 PM
“Thou shallt not kill; I don’t kill because I don’t want to suffer the consequences or the wrath of God. That is written code. It won’t make you love, just possibly prevent you from murdering. Further, if you attempt to claim righteousness on that point, you are duty bound to fulfill every other written requirement.

Sorry, but that analogy is weak; and if anything, it brings us to the same thing - you still have to obey what it says - do not MURDER!

Why in your blind insistence on the need to marry religion with faith are you denying the obvious. If I don't murder anyone, it does not mean I love them, it just means I'm wary of the law. A written code cannot make you Christlike.

That would be a difficult one for you to establish, because you'd still have to find the verse that says it was "swept away" with the rest of the written code!

In as much as tithe was introduced by law, it went the way of it in light of the saving work of The Lord. If you want to make a case for NT tithe based on pre-law type, please do so. Stop insisting it's not by coercion or commandment, whilst at the same time saying its part of a still applicable written law.

Please ask yourself what CHRIST came to fulfill!! Was it not that same written code He came to fulfill, which He clearly pronounced as such that no "jot" or "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the Law until all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:18)? Was Christ seeking "flesh glorying" when He came to fulfill the written Law?

You deviousness knows no bounds !

~ How can you claim that The Lord came to fulfill the law and at once claim parts of it are still applicable. The least you are doing is calling the work incomplete and adding works to faith in order to effect salvation. This is "flesh glorying", saying "I am righteouss because I adhere to a written code"

~ An intellect a 100th the size of yours can clearly see, that in His fulfilling it it passed away. Nailed to the cross. Enter grace. Alleluja!

What ordinances were nailed to the cross? Was that in part or in whole? If in part, were the parts voided different in intent from those not voided? You reasoning is facile. You continuously disparage the verses signifying how the law is fulfilled and relentlessly insist on parts of it being applicable. Your arguement is as clear as mud and so error strewn its scary!

Christ simply pointed out this:


THESE do . . . (a)



the OTHERS do also. . . (b)


Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42

(NLT - New Living Translation)

'You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.'


If the Lord asked you to make "THESE" redudant, please come simply write it out for your readers to see the point.

And if He asked to you make the OTHERS redudant as well, please write it out as well.

At this point, you'd only make your readers see in print how well you can mis-"interpret" clear statements!!

Please if you insist that Christ was talking to NTC, please enunciate which other parts of the written code - and exhaustively please - NTC are to keep.

You also have failed to outline the "divine principles" - again exhaustively - that you keep cryptically refering to. Would you be so kind?

My points have been crystal clear from the onset. I never made it a matter of COERCION, MANDATE, COMPULSION, or FORCE! It is because you have tried to champion that default position and tried to forcefully read it into other people's posts, that's why we have stayed on just one point until the discussion went downslope. Several times I pointed out that TITHING was a matter of WILLINGNESS from the heart - never a matter of the MANDATE you forcefully tried to make out of it.

That just makes you forked tongued at best! How can you say its by an applicable written law and then say it's not by mandate. If one breaks a law, what does that make one. You proclaim it as law and then say it's freewill? Muddled thinking, or plain falsehood?

That's not true. Those who give, the Lord clearly stated they will be blessed over those who do not - read it again:

No one is railing against freewill giving. And stop trying to make them synonymous, when you are insistent that they are different. The freewill is not prompted by a codified law.

2 Cor. 9:6, 8 & 10

(6) But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully
shall reap also bountifully.

One who sows - not tithes - can be sparingly or bountifuully how is that 10%? Optional and dependant on the heart of the sower.

(8 ) And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things,
may abound to every good work

Grace girl, grace.

(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

You cannot keep denying the clear statements in these verses and others that point out that the giver receives blessings that non-givers would not have.

Keep munching on your own tongue. Giving is blessed, freewill and from the heart. You are proclaiming a tithe based on the written code of Moses or at least supported by it.

On the other hand, I've not argued to call a curse on anyone who does not give. My persuasion has always been simple and straightforward: if you don't believe in TITHING, I'm not commissioned to fight you simply because I believe in its power and revelation! I've said so and reminded you several times about the same. It is your restlessness over this matter that makes you once and again allege that tithers are "BINDING" people to a 'man-made' religion - which I also challenged, and found you unable to simply answer the questions I offered thereto.

Now it's tithing again. They are not the same. Not predicated on the same basis nor effected by the same means. You are so convoluted if you looked like you spoke, you'd be Fusilli or a badly mishapen - and burnt - pretzel.

Right from the off, I requested you to distinguish b/w tithing and giving. You haven't and can't, because you slyly choose to sell them as the same, while claiming different blessings - and power and revelation - for tithers.

'Fess up, you have an agenda, a hidden motive, a vested interest in perpetuating this falsehood and getting yourself into a funk over it.

And you also lie about the curse, as it's inherent in your arguement. If one breaks the law of Moses one is cursed, just like blessings accrue for adhering to it. Nonsense and ingrdients!

God bless
TV

TV,

I could not help but laugh at your conclusion "nonsnse and ingredents". Are you zebrudaya's son? pilgrim, kuns, tv, you guys need not become enemies because of this. Avoid the temptation of running down people who. Peace. Christ would not wage physical war.

It is only proper to pay your tithe, so the Holy Books say

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

That is Christ saying without ambiguity that you should pay it. Whether you are born again or not.

cgift:

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

That is Christ saying without ambiguity that you should pay it. Whether you are born again or not.

No no that is mis interpretations.


Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

for paying tithe (of mint and anise and cummin)



but omitted the weightier matters (Like the law, judgment, mercy, Love and faith)


Wish you need to do but fail to do.

You are busy collecting Tithe. Tha is what christ said, Check other versions of Bible

cgift:

TV,

I could not help but laugh at your conclusion "nonsnse and ingredents". Are you zebrudaya's son? pilgrim, kuns, tv, you guys need not become enemies because of this. Avoid the temptation of running down people who. Peace. Christ would not wage physical war.

I have no enemies and don't intend to make one.

As a person with good sense, I respect people that I discuss with. If they cannot endure being cordial in the way they address others in discussions, I usually make it plain to them that such would not be tolerated from me.

That's just me.

Hnd-holder:

No no that is mis interpretations.


Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

for paying tithe (of mint and anise and cummin)



but omitted the weightier matters (Like the law, judgment, mercy, Love and faith)


Wish you need to do but fail to do.

You are busy collecting Tithe. Tha is what christ said, Check other versions of Bible

Matt 23:23 and Luke 11:42 --

This is what Jesus said at the end of His reprimand:

[list]
[li]THESE ought ye to have done[/li]
[/list]


and

[list]
[li]NOT LEAVE the OTHER undone[/li]
[/list]

@TV01,

TV01:

If you were a young lad, I'd label you as rascally and send you off with a cuff around the ear. Being a younger member of the weaker sex, I have to be a little more tender. But boy you are one querulous woman. Haba!

No vex. Deal with the issues. How bodi today?

TV01:

1. When are you going to admit that The Lord was not addressing NTC in Matthew 23:23 and the parallel verse?

Until you have a clear proof in the NT that the Lord actually made that verse redundant. Thank you.

TV01:

2. When are you going to stop claiming the tthe pre-dates the law, whilst at the same time trying to support it by recourse to same? Expecially when it is clear that we are no longer governed by a written code.

Just as you recognized that what the Law did not originate, the Law cannot abrogate.

TV01:

3. When are you going to stop championing Moses (law), for NTC and allow them their liberty in Christ (grace)?

I repeat: I have not tried to "bind" anyone to the Mosaic Law; but I also offered that NOBODY can deny the principles of the LAW that still applies to us today as Christians.

TV01:

4. When are you going to understand that fulfilling and/or establishing the law in NT terms is not to revive the written code - being counterintuitive as it was nailed to the cross - but to fulfill its righteous requirements in those who are led by the Spirit by grace?

I didn't dribble in that idea of a "written code" into Matt. 23:23 or Luke 11:42. Since you did so, please show WHERE the Lord asked you to make them redundant.

TV01:

5. When wil you accept that the NT clearly teaches that to keep any aspect of the law is to be bound to keep it all. Same theme clearly outlines that to aspoire to a law based righteousness leads to a fall from grace?

I never argued the matters you're insinuating here. I've focused on Matt. 23:23 which you have once and again misinterpreted and yet have been unable to simply acknowledge.

TV01:

6. Why do you think that be ignoring the obvious and forcefully reading your interpretaion into scripture and then repeating it ad-infinitum, that the facts will change?

You've been denying the FACTS of Matthew 23:23 - that's why I keep bringing you back to it. Now I simply request you to answer the question I presented: did the Lord make anything redundant in that verse?

TV01:

Quote from: TV01 on Yesterday at 04:14:01 PM
“Thou shallt not kill; I don’t kill because I don’t want to suffer the consequences or the wrath of God. That is written code. It won’t make you love, just possibly prevent you from murdering. Further, if you attempt to claim righteousness on that point, you are duty bound to fulfill every other written requirement

And your point in repeating that is. . .?

Gentleman, if you want us to discuss the LAW, please oblige me. These lops and plaster approach you're hanging onto is no remedy for your denials of Matt. 23:23.

TV01:

Why in your blind insistence on the need to marry religion with faith are you denying the obvious. If I don't murder anyone, it does not mean I love them, it just means I'm wary of the law. A written code cannot make you Christlike.

TV01, don't offer these shrimp excuses to scoot away from your denials of Matt. 23:23. The Lord didn't try to make anyone a "Christian" by that verse - and I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions.

TV01:

In as much as tithe was introduced by law, it went the way of it in light of the saving work of The Lord.

Another self-contradictory statement. I never said anywhere that Tithes were introduced by the LAW - and for you to now make that bold statement is to demonstrate to your readers that you have no consistent grounds for your arguments and are only seeking to plaster your persuasions along the line.

TV01:

If you want to make a case for NT tithe based on pre-law type, please do so. Stop insisting it's not by coercion or commandment, whilst at the same time saying its part of a still applicable written law.

That you have deliberately refused to read and grasp does not mean I'm not communicating. Confusing yourself on issues and not being able to maintain a consistent ground does not translate into the convulsive measures you're dancing around now.

TV01:

You deviousness knows no bounds !

Thank you. Deal with the issues.

TV01:

~ How can you claim that The Lord came to fulfill the law and at once claim parts of it are still applicable. The least you are doing is calling the work incomplete and adding works to faith in order to effect salvation. This is "flesh glorying", saying "I am righteouss because I adhere to a written code"

I didn't claim your insinuations above at any time. So if you've got issues, let's read them.

cgift:

I could not help but laugh at your conclusion "nonsnse and ingredents".

That was the whole point, to engender some humour. I don't fight my wars on paper, or with members of the weaker sex. I'm sure Pilly.1 appreciates that. Having said that if anyone is offended, my sincerest apologies.

God bless
TV

TV01:

That was the whole point, to engender some humour. I don't fight my wars on paper, or with members of the weaker sex. I'm sure Pilly.1 appreciates that. Having said that if anyone is offended, my sincerest apologies.

I'd prefer if you address me cordially and leave out the now weathered "weaker sex".

TV01,

TV01:

~ An intellect a 100th the size of yours can clearly see, that in His fulfilling it it passed away. Nailed to the cross. Enter grace. Alleluja!

In fulfilling it, it passed away, right?

In other words, because Christ fulfilled "the Law", the commandment to love God has passed away, right?

As Christ fulfilled "the Law", the commandment to NOT commit adultery passed away as well, not so?

Therefore, you can go out and steal, because Christ "fulfilled" the Law, not so?

TV01:

What ordinances were nailed to the cross? Was that in part or in whole? If in part, were the parts voided different in intent from those not voided?

What is the meaning of "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (Col. 2:14)? If you don't understand it, does it then mean that ALL of God's commandments are therefore "blotted out"? I'd like for you to explain that to your readers.

TV01:

You reasoning is facile.

Thank you again. Deal with the issues instead.

TV01:

You continuously disparage the verses signifying how the law is fulfilled and relentlessly insist on parts of it being applicable.

I didn't disparage the Law - that's the reason why I referenced Rom. 3:31 for you to understand that I wouldn't do that. Besides, you haven't EXPLAINED how the Law was fuffilled - and that is the very thing that I'm yet asking that you do.

TV01:

Your arguement is as clear as mud and so error strewn its scary!

Thank you. Deal with the issues.

TV01:

Please if you insist that Christ was talking to NTC, please enunciate which other parts of the written code - and exhaustively please - NTC are to keep.

I could do so - and I've made a request, which I'd yet post again: If you'd like to discuss "the LAW", please oblige me. By which I mean - please open a thread for that purpose and then outline your concerns about the Law and I'd gladly take you on point by point. Fair deal?

TV01:

You also have failed to outline the "divine principles" - again exhaustively - that you keep cryptically refering to. Would you be so kind?

I would do so, if the ones I already gave are insufficient to make you understand the point I'm trying to offer you. Just lease oblige my one request - outline your concerns, and then let me meet you there and we'll talk about "the LAW".

TV01:

That just makes you forked tongued at best!

Thank you. Deal with the issues.

TV01:

How can you say its by an applicable written law and then say it's not by mandate.

The context is clear - don't twist it. I offered that its PRINCIPLES are applicable, did I not?

TV01:

If one breaks a law, what does that make one. You proclaim it as law and then say it's freewill?

Even under the Law, did people not give WILLINGLY? Did you never read in the OT that the response in their giving was done WILLINGLY even under "the LAW"?

TV01:

Muddled thinking, or plain falsehood?

Neither.

TV01:

No one is railing against freewill giving. And stop trying to make them synonymous, when you are insistent that they are different.

My persuasion is that in ALL types of giving, the people responded WILLINGLY. Just because you have a hard time seeing this point does not call for your unnecessary over-reaction. Calm down, go through the texts, present your concerns - and let's DISCUSS them.

TV01:

The freewill is not prompted by a codified law.

What then prompted the saints under the Law to offer freely and willingly? Please come back make your readers see the point in your assertions.

TV01:

One who sows - not tithes - can be sparingly or bountifuully how is that 10%? Optional and dependant on the heart of the sower.

First, this is not the first time I've said that tithes do NOT have to be rigidly 10%! TV01, please do me this favour: if your memory is low, upgrade it!

Second, one you speak of "freewill offering", how does that translate into "sowing"?

Third, simply acknowledge the fact that you first denied the fact of that verse - instead of trying to pretend you've always agreed with it! That attitude is simply dishonest, TV01. Please have the moral fibre to be honest and not play games with me.

pilgrim.1:

I'd prefer if you address me cordially and leave out the now weathered "weaker sex".

Sorry dear ! Abeg no vex, I'll try and be the gentleman we all know I really am.

TV01,

TV01:

Keep munching on your own tongue.

Thank you again. Deal with the issues.

TV01:

Giving is blessed, freewill and from the heart.

Was that NOT taught in the OLD TESTAMENT?!?

TV01:

You are proclaiming a tithe based on the written code of Moses or at least supported by it.

In the NT, Paul referred precisely to the Law - 1 Cor. 9:9, 10 & 14.

TV01:

Now it's tithing again. They are not the same. Not predicated on the same basis nor effected by the same means.

I haven't seen you demonstrate clearly what the Lord asked you to make redundant as you asserted concerning Matt. 23:23.

TV01:

You are so convoluted if you looked like you spoke, you'd be Fusilli or a badly mishapen - and burnt - pretzel.

Thanks. Deal with the issues.

TV01:

Right from the off, I requested you to distinguish b/w tithing and giving.

You rather tried to play games with me by dribbling round my simple question as to if you were aware there were DIFFERENT types of giving. Seeing that is precisely what you often do, I shared my persuasions - and you predicatbly attacked them without offering ANYTHING alternatively that was of benefit to you and your folks. If you simply could do me the honour of answering the questions, then you will read further on that concern.

TV01:

You haven't and can't, because you slyly choose to sell them as the same, while claiming different blessings  - and power and revelation - for tithers.

The simple thing to do is for you to demonstrate that TITHERS/GIVERS are NOT blessed above those who DO NOT TITHE/GIVE. Can you do so? Thank you.

TV01:

'Fess up, you have an agenda, a hidden motive, a vested interest in perpetuating this falsehood and getting yourself into a funk over it.

Thank you. Deal with the issues.

TV01:

And you also lie about the curse, as it's inherent in your arguement.

Please show me where I ever CURSED anyone. Thank you.

TV01:

If one breaks the law of Moses one is cursed, just like blessings accrue for adhering to it. Nonsense and ingrdients!

In other words, if one does not break the Law of Moses, one is NOT cursed - is that your argument?

Now, let's see how that applies. The LAW of MOSES says:

Thou shalt NOT steal

Thou shalt NOT commit adultery

Thou shalt NOT kill

Now, if you as a Christian break any one of these LAWS, then you are blessed, not so?

TV01, your arguments have not dealt with the issues around Matt. 23:23. You've characteristically switched over and deflected into other issues that only accentuate the fact that you really are not asking for a discussion. I'm going to ask again that you deal with those issues simply, and help progress this discussion.

- - - -

And let me note this: TV01, I offered you a new leaf to enable an enduring and amicable discourse. It appears you cannot hold that offer for long. Go back and count how many times I "thank(ed) you" over your discourtesies and asked that you deal with issues. I will not be so condescending in my subsequent posts. This is the last warning I would have to offer you about that.

Regards.

I call for seize fire, educate us who should pay tithe. Do not be personnal on this issue.
We can not fight for GoD

Tithing should be the focus.

TV01,

I noticed you NEVER addressed the core concern of Matthew 23:23 in your reposte. This is the one thing I continually have called the attention of tithe-opposers to: the fact that you're least interested in dialogue and your unwillingness to answer questions.

All the same, I'd like for you to deal with this particular issue as simply and directly as you possibly could manage:


(1)

       MATTHEW 23:23 and LUKE 11:42


Let me outline them for easier reference:

¤ (A) the 'CODE' - [tithes/tithing]

¤ (B) the INTENT - [weightier matters of the Law: judgement, mercy and faith]

¤¤¤ So, which of the two elements did He ask you to retain?

¤¤¤ Which one of them did He ask you to make redundant?

If you void one [(A)], then you'd have to void the other [(B)] - because the Lord voided NEITHER of them!!  This is His word:

¤¤ "THESE" ought ye to have done  -- (A) the 'CODE'

¤¤ AND not to leave the "OTHER" undone -  (B) the INTENT

So, if you argue to keep/retain "the intent" and make "the code" redundant, are you not really misinterpreting the Lord's WORD in that verse?



(2)

       MATTHEW 23:23 and LUKE 11:42

        Christ simply pointed out this:

      [list]
[li]THESE do[/li]   . . . (a)
[/list]

[list]
[li]the OTHERS do also[/li] . . . (b)
[/list]

    Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42

(NLT - [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt.%2023.23;&version=51;]New Living Translation[/url])

'You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.'


If the Lord asked you to make "THESE" redudant, please come simply write it out for your readers to see the point.

And if He asked to you make the OTHERS redudant as well, please write it out as well.

At this point, you'd only make your readers see in print how well you can mis-"interpret" clear statements!!



I really do need you to address them. NO evasions or prevarications, please.

Cheers.