₦airaland Forum

Image123: You're welcome Mark, have a good night rest.
My oga moderator, our agreement is 12hours in between posts oh. 12hours. i'm not sure we're rushing anywhere or have a deadline to close thread. Please, let's be more patient.

I share Image's sentiments and would plead with DrummaBoy to allow for a little flexibility in the time limits though based on request to enable the other team plan their time too.

I'm a bit constrained at the moment and was only able to establish limited contact with Mark less than 30mins ago. I still await his reply and since we want to always speak with one voice, I believe he'll be favourably disposed to this request as I informed him in my correspondence with him.

In that light, I humbly request an additional 5 hours which should elapse by 11:51pm Nigerian time. I apologise to you and my brothers in the other team for whatever inconveniences you suffer as a result.

Thanks a lot and God bless

We can’t compare Jesus’ victory on the cross to wars fought for materials acquisitions as this is even more distressing. Jesus triumphed over the devil to return what we lost in Eden, He didn’t defeat the devil to profit himself and leave us the way we were and that is the same thing Abram did here. He went to battle to recover goods lost by some helpless people and return it to them. He didn’t go to battle to enrich himself via the goods of vanquished people. If that was the morality of those peoples, Abram operated by higher standards. Even the example of David's war of recovery on the amalekites prove this

1Sam 30:22
'Then answered all the wicked men, and men of Belial, of those that went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them aught of the spoil that we recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that they may lead them away, and depart'

These men wanted to claim the properties of these men who couldn't go to fight but had their family and belongings rescued. They wanted to see these tired men's goods as spoils of war to be claimed but the bible described them as WICKED MEN and MEN OF BELIAL. Thank God David had higher moral standards than these men hence he could say the below

1Sam 30:23
'Then said David, ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the LORD hath given us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the company that came against us into our hand'


When a thief breaks into your home while you are sleeping, ties you up and steals your household goods , or when a carjacker grabs the keys from your hand and steals your car, do you automatically say, “Well, those things are no longer mine, they belong to the man that overtook us and took them from us. To the victor belong the spoils.”? No, the police are usually called. The police will investigate and, if they find the culprit and are able to recover the goods stolen, do they get to keep them? Of course not! They are your property. This is exactly what Abraham did. Its exactly what David did and its exactly what our Lord did for us.

Abram gave tithes or 10% of the spoils of war to King Melchizedek who obviously was a known and possibly renowned king in that area. The king of Sodom and his allies wouldn't have been surprised to see him and he even refreshed them. Abram gave tithes of the recovered goods to him and obviously the king of Sodom was present and raised no objection. Why should he? When he had lost everything initially so what was 10% to honour a revered king who even hosted the victorious and rejoicing party to a meal and refreshments? They all knew how great this King was and this fact was buttressed by the writer to the Hebrews thousands of years later.

Heb 7:4,7
‘Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils’….[7]And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better’

END

RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL OF M1


Abram gave tithes to Melchizedek from the spoils gotten from the war to rescue his Nephew, Lot and his friends in Sodom and neighbouring towns from the marauding kings who came to raid them. The properties recovered were not his before he went to recover them from the war and they were still not his after he brought them back from the marauding kings. The king of Sodom obviously still knew the goods were his. See his statement to Abram

Gen 14:21
‘And the King of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself’

With the statement above, we must SURELY agree that the man still saw the goods as belonging to him and he wasn’t getting ahead of himself for thinking that. Abram was asked to come and help recover lost items and its preposterous to think he’ll go and then replace the thieves who stole them in the first place. What then was the need to call for a recoverer?. If Abram had profited from the war, it would have been at the pleasure of the king of Sodom. He reserved the right to give Abram the spoils and we saw him exercise this right when he asked Abram to give him the persons but keep the goods. If he exercised ownership over the persons, how then can we say the goods were no longer his? Remember in war, goods as well as people are items

Abram agreed that all the goods still belonged to the king of Sodom hence he could say ‘I will not take anything from thee, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich’. The great man realized and knew the goods were not his and it will do us a great deal of good to see this truth with him.

Gen 14:22-24
'And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth. that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

The Patriarch had put himself under oath before going to battle that he WILL NOT PROFIT from this battle. If a lawyer wins a libel battle for a client and the client gets paid damages, will the lawyer appropriate the money all to himself? Won’t we call him a thief and backstabber? If the client offers the lawyer part or all of the damages paid, and the lawyer refuses to collect it, how do we say the lawyer owns the money? The example of likening this war to a cup competition is wrong because the cup belonged to none of the teams before they meet and to liken it to a boxing competition is sad because Abram evidently answered a distress call to save a distressed king and help him recover his goods and his subjects that were taken. That is like saying America answering a distress call from Kuwait in 1990 to save it from Iraqi occupation gives America the right to claim the oil wells of Kuwait which is what made Iraq go rogue in the first place. That would be stealing and betrayal. Sure Abram had a better value system and he put it on display. Honest conscience was better than riches to the great man.

Hi DrummaBoy, thanks for your last post. I was going to complain about it and some other thing but since you've noticed and brought it up, I think that's settled. However the other statements I have issues with are those insinuating that those who don't tithe cannot or should not dabble into defining tithe. I trust we all discussing here are Christians who don't practice adultery or fornication, does that make us incapable of defining these wrong practices? We all can define sabbath and its not because we observe the sabbath.

On the issue of a closing speech from the presenter of a point, I don't think its necessary. We are discussing, remember? not debating. Moreover it will extend the discussion a great deal. Let's just stick to the present format but if there are more voices against my stand, I guess I will just bow to the new proposed rule as my team leader has even agreed to it

Thanks

This thread just made me remember the sad episode of Nov 4 year 2000. just before the toll gate at Ile Ife, a wedding party travelling from ibadan to Akure was rammed into by a petrol tanker that lost control. The bride, groom and many others were burnt to death beyond recognition. over a 100 people lost their lives that day.

Thank God for this couple.....they are indeed very lucky.

RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL R1

All Scripture is profitable. No doubt in my mind whatsoever about that. And I am so thankful that it is. We can learn valuable lessons through our diligent study of Scripture. The Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto Salvation and eventually ensure that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2Tim 3:15,17)

So, how is the Scripture concerning tithes profitable to us and help furnish us unto good works? In the first instance of Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek, the instruction to be gleaned there is that of honour to a superior, Nothing more nothing less.

Gen 14:19-20
‘And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:[20]And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all’

Melchizedek showed his superiority to Abram by blessing him with physical provision and spiritual blessings while Abram showed his deference to the Superiority of Melchizedek by giving him tithes of all the spoils he brought back from the war and it was an event that occurred just ONCE. This greater-lesser relationship is further emphasized by Paul in his letter to the Hebrews

Heb 7:6-7
‘But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.[7]And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.’

Melchizedek was superior to Abram but under grace today, no Christian is superior to another as we all are equal before God and have Christ as one high priest over us. No Christian can claim priest over another Christian today as we are all equally priests before God (1Pet 2:9, Rev 5:10).

In the second instance of the various tithes instituted in the laws of Moses, the instruction received from them is that of care and support for those unable to fend for themselves due to one reason or the other. The principle contained therein is that of Love and giving

Deut 14:27-29
‘And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him: for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.[28]At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:[29]And the Levite,(because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest’

The Levites because they were yoked to the service of the temple and administration of the nation had no land or inheritance alloted to them so couldn’t fend for themselves. This ensured they needed tithes for sustenance. The fatherless, widow and strangers for obvious reasons also were dependent on the goodwill of God and others hence their allotment of tithes which God already claimed as holy unto him (Lev 27:30-32)

This principle of care for those who can’t care for themselves litters the entire new testament (Acts 2:45, 4:32-35, Rom 15:25-26 1Cor 16:1). Infact a leader in the church who has the resources should cater for those who do not have. We see Paul tell the Ephesian elders this

Acts 20:34-35
‘Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.[35]I have showed you all things, how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more blessed to give than to receive.’

The Christian experience should be one of continuing love, sharing and giving even more than the 10% enshrined as tithe in the old testament. God gave us his son because we NEEDED salvation, so should we(clergy and members) be ready to give our resources to those who lack (clergy and members) because they NEED it. This is the cardinal lesson contained in tithes as instituted by God


END

DrummaBoy: It's OK Image; I think I understand your difficulty here. I was almost certain that both of you had had things cleared up before the discussion started but apparently that is not the case.

My decision still stands because I am aware that Mark and Candour are working on responding to the Rhymey's post and not yours. What we can do, however, is that we will still permit this Response to Rebuttal R1 by you on the thread and we shall give Mark and Candour the liberty to respond to it or not. They may as well respond to both of you in their post.

I will just request that from now on, both of you should agree on posts before coming out.

Thanks.

Hi DrummaBoy, I'm seeing this issue for the first time. Pls I'll crave your indulgence to let image defend his post with his own response to the rebuttal. Obviously Rymeyjohn being a good partner didn't want them to run foul of the time limit hence his response even though they've not really come together to harmonise issues.

Personally, I won't want to respond to 2 rebuttals on the same ppoint as its a strain on Mark and I since we must present a common position necessitating regular communication. We are in separate time zones with 7 hours difference. When he's sleeping, I'm up and when he's up, I should be sleeping. Its tasking enough as it is.

I'll prefer we treat this post by image as the valid response and respond accordingly. Whatever time has gone in preparing a response to Ryhmeyjohn will be taken as one of them sacrifices. I'll beg Mark to allow us work on this while you give us some additional time because of this situation.

Thanks a lot

DrummaBoy: @Candour. Pls indicate if you have ended the reuttal.

If you have ended your discuss sir, then Image123 and Rhymeyjohn have up till 3pm, Nigerian time, today, to offer a Response to the Rebuttal R1.

I have to state this time limits, so that the discuss enjoys time limitations and viewers do not have to wait forever to see a response.

Thanks to all.

Apologies for the ommision of 'end'

I've indicated it now

REBUTTAL TO R1

True all scripture is inspired by God but not all scriptures are meant for us to practice in the new covenant of grace established through the blood of Christ. There are a lot of good practices in the old testament that are pleasing to God but we don't rush to start practicing them as they are at variance with the dispensation of grace encompassing both Jews and Gentiles today. Tithing is not the only practice we find if we go on a search of scriptures particularly the old testament. There are various practices like burnt offerings, sin offerings, feast of weeks, feast of tabernacles, Sabbath observance etc. and they all had their reasons why they were instituted by God almighty.

If the motive for tithing is because they are found in scripture, then every single tither is obligated to engage in all the forms of tithing and the other practices listed above (and plenty others) that are found in scripture. For instance see a form of tithing that is very important to God as underscored by the bolded portion

Deut 14:22-23
‘Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.[23]And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.’

If a tither doesn’t practice the above form of tithing, then he’s guilty of disobedience in all the sense of the word. We don’t get to select what to do and what not to do based on what or how we feel otherwise we run foul of another scripture inspired by God in Deut 27:26. The key is to rightly divide the word of truth to know what applies to us today with respect to the cross of Jesus Christ.


As a child, Timothy knew the holy scriptures. This is because of the fact that his mother, Eunice and grandmother Lois were Jewish women who had love for God and must have taught them to him (2Tim 1:5). The Scriptures that his mother and grandmother taught him would have been the Scriptures of the Old Testament which were basically the Mosaic law. He would have known that God commanded a tithe of crops and livestock. (Lev. 27:30-33) . Timothy would have also known about the various forms of tithing (Num 18:21-31, Deut 14:22-29) and would have known they had to be practiced the exact way God intended them to be otherwise it becomes a transgression.

End

Image123: Presenting R1. Our tithing is borne out of the fact that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16)

When we talk of tithing or of any thing or practice, there is usually a motivation, a reason. i mean, people do not normally do things without reason, right? Some people's actions are motivated by fear, some by respect, some by hate, some by love, some by faith etc. It is a statement in christian parlance that God looks at motive and not just action. Motive BTW is another word for reason, intention or aim.Motives matter and actions equally matter too. The two need to go in sync. Tithing in this case is the action and the motives are the reasons being presented. This motive is foundational to us as tithers, and that is that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
This passage says from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures The Holy Scriptures being referred to are not even the epistles or the gospels as none of these was yet to be written when Timothy was a child. The Holy Scriptures were basically what we popularly know today as the Old Testament. The writer says they are Holy, and are ABLE to make one wise. Then comes the all important statement. ALL Scripture. ALL, that includes Haggai or Zephaniah or Psalms or Genesis or Malachi. And that includes what we popular call the New Testament, because the New Testament are Scriptures. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. There is NO useless scripture but they are all divinely breathed as it were. This is foundational to the believer to know, realise and reckon with.
All scripture is not only inspired, all Scripture is profitable. We do not all see the profit at every time. Any scripture can be used by God to come alive, from what they call logos to rhema. This for instance is why you may read a particular passage many times in a life time and yet mark or highlight some specific like you never saw it before. It became more profitable to you at that moment. All scripture is profitable, there is none useless or unprofitable. That a person does not see the profit at the moment does not mean that it is not profitable. What we need is help from God's Holy Spirit and perhaps time, and then we may see and enjoy the profit of a particular scripture or passage. The aim of all scriptures is that the man of God(which should be every believer) may be perfect and thoroughly furnished. Now, no one is perfect in that sense. But children of God are expected to press on to perfection, toward the mark for the prize of the high calling. There is a mark but even Paul the apostle claimed not to be there. So, all scripture is given so that we can all press on toward that mark. Now, we/i am not talking about pressing to salvation. There is nothing we can do as it were to obtain salvation or forgiveness of sins. i'm talking about pressing to the mark. All scripture is given for this purpose, that he man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. It is in this light that we tithe.


end

DrummaBoy: ^

I accept this as the genuine Presentation for R1. This is what Miwerds and Candour should respond to in their rebuttals and not the earlier post by Rhymeyjohn.

Miwerds and co, you have up to 10 am tomorrow morning, Nigerian time, to answer to this post, in a post titled Rebutting R1.

Miwerds/Candour, can you give us an idea of when you will make your presentation? It is late and some of us may want to catch some sleep.

Thank you.

We can't give you the exact time but you'll see the Rebuttal before 10am Nigerian time tommorow

God bless us all

DrummaBoy: Hello Guys

I want to apologize for all of your comments that were hidden in the discussion thread.

Apparently you guys broke the rules and Ajibam just enforced it.

I would like to see a situation were the discussions that naturally should have been on the discussion thread to go on here. The only people barred from posting here are the participants.

So let us have your views but unfortunately, they will only be limited to this thread. When the discuss is over, we shall have all the to discuss on that other thread.

Thank you for your understanding.

Hi DrummaBoy, No need to apologise for Ajibam doing the job you begged of him. I would even like a situation where posts made by participants hidden too on the discussion thread if they are not relevant to the discuss at hand.

We've had enough time to banter. Now we want to discuss so let all of us be in the mood to discuss

Thank you

[quote author=pweety_tonie]Always recruiting no be small after fiiling their unending forms do online assessment u won't hear frm them nxt thing u'll see anothoer recruitment advert....I have tire for them jhoor[/quote]Sister, pls don't lose hope. Their recruitment process could be annoying and frustrating sometimes. My younger brother almost lost hope after attending series of tests and interviews in 2006 but he was finally called to start towards the end of that year.

If you've done the tests and interviews and believe you did well, just keep hope alive while working on your salary negotiation skills that's one point where I heard they suck at.

For others, just keep applying. I trust it cost you nothing and you can never tell.

Cheers and all the best.

DrummaBoy: Thank you guys.

Awaiting Candour and Rhymejohn though.

OK by me.

kodred: Misleading topic. I saw it and quickly clicked on it thinking it will solve my problem cos glo calls me like 3 to 4 times in a day op add a ? to d topic jor

Same here. I was actually thinking a solution to the menace had been found. They are simply annoying and irritating.

@OP, pls correct the topic.

thanks

Rhymeyjohn: ^^^ excately candour, i agree 100percent with you. May God grant us grace, to stand alone with truth sometimes looks difficult, but one with God is majority. God Bless.

I say amen brother.

God bless you too

Pastor Olu T: God u guys too, Candour n Alwaystrue for holding on to the truth n preaching it. Another issue in the Christendom today;

There nothing as Hell and the judgment to come messages being a gospel of FEAR as many claims, but that we should preach the Goodnews and only say those things that are pleasing. The gospel is supposed to be encompassing, and the message of eternal condemnation is fully part of the Goodnews and ought to be preached alongside every other truths in the bible.

The truth remain that however the message is being preached, unrepentant sinners will still find it offensive, so we ought to preach the GOODNEWS as Paul , the Apostles, and the early Christians did!

And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Acts 24:25

Stay blessed and reminded rapturable

I agree with you my brother.

God bless you too

Image123: You've said a lot of nonsense that i did not say or intend to say.

And you honestly think you made any sense calling the blouse women wear a shirt?

Good though to see that the bold agrees with what i am saying.

Thank God for mercies.

i have given you a dictionary and links that CLEARLY state that a blouse is a shirt.

You lie greatly here my friend. The Merriam Webster dictionary from where you pulled your definition of shirt NEVER defined a blouse as a shirt. Go back to it and check.

Also see the first paragraph of the link you provided

A shirt is a cloth garment for the upper body. Originally an undergarment worn exclusively by men, it has become, in American English, a catch-all term for a broad variety of upper body garments and undergarments. In British English, a shirt is more specifically a garment with a collar, sleeves with cuffs, and a full vertical opening with buttons or snaps. (North Americans would call that a "dress shirt", a specific type of "collared shirt". A shirt can also be worn with a necktie under the shirt collar.

The bolded portions prove you've been stretching the truth about this issue ever since. You didn't even take your time to read your link before posting it for the world to read.

Meanwhile, check this link (from the same wiki) below for the story of trousers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers

i'm not here to make a law for you or anybody, neither do i have to start making defences on false accusations of what i did not say or teach.

Of course you have no powers to make laws for anybody. If you make a claim, you must defend it. If you can't defend a claim, simply avoid making one. Silence can't be quoted.

Good bye and enjoy the traffic.

You have spent more time and have more posts than me on this thread. Its very obvious that you're more interested in the traffic than me.

These types of evil will keep thriving until we de-emphasize money and material acquistions in our society and particularly in our places of worship. If we can't find sobriety, modesty and contentment in our churches, then the society is doomed. Even so called pastors are members of the sadistic gang. Who can say with confidence that they've not killed some church members in similar fashion?

'The love of money is the root of all evil' has to be one of the truest sayings this world ever heard and it gets confirmed every day. Sadly the society and Christians in particular refuse to stop for a moment and think about it.

Its a scary world we live in now and I wonder where next we are headed.

Rhymeyjohn: Truth is bitter and people set up weakling arguments in emotional tones to defend their dogma. Sound doctrine is not popular, so i dont expect many people to love it, surely going to cost something. Over 1.2billion muslims, so what? about 1billion catholics, and then? Since bible days till now, God has never moved with the majority. Let all men be lairs and God true. Sound doctrine will never be popular, because the carnal man cannot please God. God Bless.

You're very right. Sound doctrine WILL NEVER BE POPULAR. I wish all these our mega churches will hear you and reconsider that having a crowd of worshipers or having plenty money, materials and resources doesn't translate into being approved by God.

God almighty knows those that are his and very narrow is the way to life and few there be that locate it is the statement made by the master himself.

God bless you.

Image123: Okay, no qualms too. though love of money is not about how much one has in one's account or purse. i've seen very poor people who had love of money before.
Not read Achebe, watched the play though. i do not not about comrades or what not, but as for me, the ratio is 'impressive'. The concession is fine.

ok

Image123: Oh its the hearing enough of it that is the problem? Thanks. i asked him to show me what the cruel thing was but he did not. i read and re-read the post, i was thinking the offense had to do with the kidding i made about windows of heaven. Anyways, sorry for that. It was just that i was talking about something else, about love of money or so, and he was telling me about how his condition is and how much he has to spend and this and that. That was why i thought he should not bring that in. Again, sorry about that. i do/did not wish or intend to talk negatively about his disability.

No wahala bro. His reply to your accusation of love of money was just to let you know he had nothing financial he was benefiting from his stance against tithes as he's even on a disability package and despite all, he still remained faithful to God. I believe he wasn't seeking a pity party.

You know we are used to accusing ourselves of love of money so if na Goshen or DrummaBoy, i'm sure it wouldn't have appeared in such an insensitive light.

About the bolded you said i should remember, i do not recall saying that. But no wahala, i will try to remember that.

So you're one of those who didn't read Chinua Achebe's books? The bolded is an Igbo proverb in 'Things Fall Apart'. I only quoted it to drive home my point.

If your stopping for 2months or 2years makes no difference, you should not find it that hard a request or a tying of hands. Neither i nor my comrades(whatever that means) talks about tithe every month and week, and on every tithe thread, making circular arguments.

Really it doesn't. I am less than a year old on NL. That should tell you i had a life before coming here and would definitely have a life when i eventually leave. I just don't like the idea of somebody dictating how i run my life or my hands on my keyboard.

If it's to avoid a prejudice against our discussion, then you'll have a case which is why i made the concession of staying away from other tithe discussions for the duration of our discussions.

My dear, recheck again. you and your comrades post as much as i do on those threads. Infact in my spare time 2 days ago, i checked the ratio of all our individual posts. You can check yourself. i'm sure you wont make that statement again after you do.

Bidam: Ok,neither did i say you did.

ok

The penalties are wiped out through the acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ. You re trying too hard to take my statement in isolation. If you keeping committing sin by breaking the law, you are literary saying by your actions, that the sacrifice of Christ is of no value.

This has always been my anthem hence my mantraa GRACE IS NOT LICENSE I'm sure you've heard me say that maybe a million times on NL?

Your old nature is always at war with the new.Infact you are not there yet so stop telling us lies here.

Actually I always preach that we are saved but as long as we are in this body of flesh, we are prone to occasionally falling but the Spirit of God in us always restores us back. I don't claim perfection. If my statement looked like claiming perfection, then know that its not intended to be.

Rather you might be the liar here because you're the champion at calling people LAWLESS FOLKS. Do you remember? If you now believe like we do that the old nature is always at war with the new and likely to trip you, then let your new stance be made public.

As for the others you know my stand on tithes. [b]I don"t tithe based on the law. I tithe based on faith and what the Holy spirit told me.[/b]So i follow the leading and obedience of the Holy Spirit using scripture to validate it.God does nothing except by His Spirit and word and they both agree.Concerning the feasts you talked about i can glean spiritual types and principles by the help of the Holy Spirit without literary reading them like you do here. They were not written in the bible for show but for us.

If it's by faith and the holy spirit told you expressly, why tell me i sin because i don't tithe? Have you asked me if the Holy Spirit told me not to tithe? Do you give first fruits? Do you know its also a feast?

So what principles might be gleaned from those feasts?

Very funny fellow,why twist my words.I said i did not write it in Greek and Latin,i did not say i can't speak Greek and Latin.Do you know whether i have been taking lessons in Greek and Latin As for whether everybody knows speak for yourself abeg, not on behalf of everybody.You are not God so you don"t know peoples heart. . Ok suit yourself based in your explanations. i rest my case like all the others.

Really?? you do speak Greek and Latin?? Thank God for you o. I didn't know some people even knew. my apologies then.

Was Malachi and Moses not inspired by the same God?

Yes they were

I don't know, you can ask your God.As for the tithes you refused to answer my question.I initially asked you to show me the scripture where tithe was abolished in the NT.So far you have failed to answer it. You are free to quote my answers on the tithes from other numerous tithe threads that abound on nairaland.Cheers.

Thank God you admitted you don't know. There's no where i was asked to tithe in the new testament so i don't.

cheers

Bidam: I knew it was the English definition you were referring to that was why i gave it.Like alwaystrue observed rightly ordinances ought to be defined according to biblical context and not you inferring it using English meanings,this is how errors emanate.There is nothing wrong in studying to show yourself approved unto God if you are saying i am using strong like goshen,that is irrelevant.

Remember i didn't suggest you go to the dictionary to help me get the meaning of ordinance right? If you're rejecting what you posted yourself, it will be entirely your choice.

So if Christ wiped out the debt of your sin, should you go back sinning using your analogy? The curse of the Law still follows every unconffessed sins,to him that knows to do good(tithing is a good and faithful deed) and does not do it to him it is sin.

Do you remember posting this below? pay particular attention to the bolded portion you highlighted yourself.

Bidam: "the handwriting of requirements" (cheirógrafon toís dógmasin) is a Greek legal expression that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--it does not signify the laws that are to be obeyed--only the penalty It is only through the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"wink. But only the penalty, not the law!.

What does it mean if not that no more penalties for breaking the law? Your own words are that penalties for breaking the law are wiped out. I dont run foul of the law today simply because my new nature abhors works for the flesh.

If tithing is a good thing and not doing it is sin, how about feast of weeks? feast of first fruits? feasts of trumpets? grain offerings etc?

What i wrote was in English not Greek or Latin abeg. Christ nailed the certificate of debt written against us in col 2:14 AND Paul explained it in col 2:13. There is a difference between the nature of sin and acts of sins. The nature of sin was nailed to the cross not the acts of sins. The acts of sins by believers who deliberately continue in it without repentance and godly sorrow could bring back back that nature of sin making the blood of the cross of no effect.

Everybody knows you can't speak Greek or Latin so you dont have to remind me. Your explanations here have no correlation with what i wrote or what is in Collosians 2:13-14. If you can't explain it, i won't press you.

Anytime Paul gave an express command from the Lord, it is stated,even if not stated,the root of what he says is always found in the OT.Like the covetous scripture i quoted is a moral law found in the OT which is an express command.

For example on marriage Paul gave an express command on marriage and stated it was not him but the lord( 1cor 7:10)

in another verse he stated it was him(1cor 7:12).

We all know Paul was inspired by God which is why his epistles form part of scripture today.

On the scripture you quoted,it has long been debated on this forum and this thread is for tithes, but the truth of the matter is people have misinterpreted these verses and build all kinds of doctrines on them without properly explaining the context of what Paul was saying by the help of the Holy Spirit.So also is the issue of tithing which you guys have narrowed it down to farmers,telling us it was abolished.SMH!

So what is the context in which Paul penned 1Tim 2:9 and 1Tim 2:11-12? Maybe you might then be able to explain the context of tithes which you accuse us of narrowing

Joagbaje: The bible has no reference to trouser. They had no trouser in bible days. It's not about fashion . Besides it's an illustration

I agree with you. But those condemning women who wear trousers use Deut 22:5 for emphasis, the same way some others use Mal 3 to enforce tithes and Exodus or Leviticus to enforce first fruits.

Christians are not under the law. We do Gods principle they may be contained in the law but we font do them because the law says so .

Halleluyah!!!

This is what we've been saying since. I don't kill or steal today and i honor my parents, not because the law says so but because They're attributes of my new nature in Christ. I don't need the law to remind me. The law of Christ which is essentially the law of love ensures i display love always to my neighbor which is essentially love for God

I'll bookmark this your quote for reference.

We do them because they are kingdom principle.

I'll need education on what these kingdom principles are. I opened a thread for it but i don't know if you saw it.


https://www.nairaland.com/1541310/what-exactly-eternal-principles-kingdom

It's true . If you want you want to live by the law you must keep all. But Christians don't live by the law of Moses .

Another Classic!!!

Christians don't live by the laws of Moses. ces't fini

Pastor Olu T: I still cant understand why so many exalt their experiences above the word of God? Some claim to have had wonderful experiences with the Lord n thereby do not need the bible again 'cos they hear directly from God.

As Christians we should be very careful to be guided by the word, for the devil is so subtle that he can also give u supernatural experiences which if u are not abreast with the word/God, u will easily miss it!

Study to show thyself approve, a workman who need not ashamed rightfully dividing the word of truth!

God bless you pastor Olu.

@the bolded is what has given rise to so many demi gods in Christianity today. People now see these mere men in the mold of an Elijah or Elisha forgetting that before the cross, The Holy Spirit wasn't yet given and God Spoke ONLY through intermediaries but now he speaks to us all by the Holy Spirit residing in all his children.

Pastor Olu T: Many even claimed that the word is the words of men and hereby prone to errors. But as a bible student and a wise man, you would understand that the bible is divided into categories, the words of the prophets allegedly from God Himself, eye witnesses accounts which was confirmed because it did not negate what was afore written, and others.

Many do not know the divisions in the bible at all and this leads to plenty errors and misinterpretations. They forget that even satan was quoted in the bible. In the book of Job for instance, God condemned Job's 3 friends for not telling the truth about him and these guys words accounted for more than half of the book of Job. So a diligent student of the bible will need to sieve through that book so as not to get enmeshed in the untruths they uttered about God almighty.

God will surely help his children.

Joagbaje: Is the law bad ? The law contains vital kingdom principles which can be used for illustrations and references . Didn't paul quote the law many times. "Honor thy father " is it not in the law? Why would paul quote the law to the church? Why is it tithing satan fight ? It only shows that there's something very significant about tithing .

All the law is good my brother and I'm sure that is why some of our brothers are still hung up on Deut 22:5 as a proof that any woman wearing trousers is anathema. Do you subscribe to this belief as well? Or maybe its satan in them that is raising this fight too.

The law is a composite whole. If you can't keep one, you've failed in all according these verses from both the old and new.

Deuteronomy 27:26 KJV
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

James 2:10 KJV
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point , he is guilty of all.

Do you agree the above is the word of God?

Joagbaje: Beautiful ! This is As simple as ABC. Except that the anititithers are anti offering and anti alms giving anti widow giving anti prayers! Anti Christ !

Story story.

Malachi was entirely about going back to the laws and ordinances of God.

Mal 4:4 summarises that for you

Gombs: Anti Common Sense too

Are you diagnosing yourself?

Common sense should have made folks realise that Malachi was talking about the ordinances and laws of God, not only tithes and offerings.

I trust Mal 4:4 is still in your Bible?

Image123: The point i made was that all upper garments are generally and basically shirts. i have given a dictionary that says so, proving that i'm not just imagining things. Wiki is also some general knowledge. Here is what THIS LINK says about blouse being shirt.
[4] Traditionally, the term has been used to refer to a shirt which blouses out.
[1] Today, the word most commonly refers to a woman's shirt
i'm not the only one that defines a blouse technically/basically/generally as a shirt.

Shirts are upper garments doesn't mean all upper garments are shirts. Just like Toyota corrollas are cars doesn't mean all cars are Toyota corrollas.

Blouse is an upper garment that resembles a shirt. The dictionary doesn't call blouses shirts. If you still don't see the ridiculousness of your argument, too bad.

They started at the same time. It is modern fashion that makes this basic meaning to be lost on many. Call it garment, robe, clothes, apparel or whatever archaic name. The basic definition of a shirt still matches all upper body clothing. BTW, here is another wiki link It also says that there are different TYPES of shirts. Among the types of shirts it listed are dress shirts, t-shirt, long sleeve shirt, sleeveless shirt, polo shirt, sweatshirt, A-shirt(which is also known as vest or singlet), camisole, tunic, halter top etc. The point is that they are almost inseparable etymologically, you cannot compare that to trousers that even you would agree that it was generally known as male's wear few decades ago globally, and is still being thought as a male's wear in some circles.

All you wrote there is grossly inadequate to substantiate your claims of all upper garments are shirts.

Did they include blouse as a type of shirt? What about Coat? What of the jacket of a a suit?

I repeat, not all upper garments are shirts.

Actually it is you that seems to be stretching the truth. from common knowledge, we know that trousers have for long been known as belonging to men, and the aim of the verse seems to be to avoid eroding dissimilarities in dressing. Here is yet another wiki link again. i do not depend on or love giving unnecessary links. i'm just showing you that this things are general knowledge, not things coming out of my imaginations. Some statements from the link below.
trousers have been largely worn by men and not by women until the early 20th century.
In Britain during the Second World War, because of the rationing of clothing, many women took to wearing their husbands' civilian clothes to work
In 1969 Rep. Charlotte Reid (R-Ill.) became the first woman to wear trousers in the U.S. Congress.

Also, here
Western women are often seen wearing trousers, ties, and men's hats. Nevertheless, many cultures around the world still prohibit women from wearing trousers or other traditionally male clothing.

What about the Arab woman? Or the Indian woman? Also what about the Scottish man with his kilt that is obviously a skirt? Is he in violation of Deut 22:5 too?

Every body knows trousers wearing would have started with men and i admitted that much, but shirts wearing too started with men. You pointed out when women started wearing trousers in the western world. If you want to be thorough, tell us when camisole and other female shirt versions entered the fashion scene and language.

i do not think it right to build a bible verse interpretation on what an individual does. The verse in question is Deut 22v5. Propping up other verses to cancel it or make it seem ridiculous is not the way out. To be short though, i will quote a new testament commentary on a similar verse.
Deu 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
1Co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Co 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

The new testament does not pick up this OT verses to point out its ridiculousness. It does not even say that they are irrelevant or useless. In fact, it says in this case that they are written for our sakes. If 25v4 is written for our sakes, is there not a probability that 22 might have been written for our sakes too. Why do we not instead ask God for its personal application and interpretation in our life and grace to do His will? Have you considered that passages like 2corinth 6v14 are applications from this same 22v9-11 that you are asking about? i do not think any scripture irrelevant or a tool to cancel out other scriptures that i do not like or understand. i instead ask God for grace and understaanding. And when He gives it, i do not go about condemning or lambasting others that do not have light or understanding or my view point. that's what i can say as regards those verses.

I brought up those verses to show you the hypocrisy of picking which Mosaic law was convenient for you while dropping another. We've argued endlessly that the old testament is for learning, not for doctrine to a Christian saved by grace. Paul used the example to make a case that ministers should be supported by the gospel, not to replicate the exact same practice.

So verse 5 was written for our sakes, then for whose sake were verses 9 & 11 written? Confusion will always arise when you mix grace with the law because it only makes hypocrites of Christians. When you mix the Torah with your Christianity, it becomes ridiculous.

If you truly asked the holy Spirit for guidance, he would have shown to you that not all ladies wearing trousers do so to entice men or reverse nature. Well maybe you can't hear him on this because you're not a Lady.

Have you been to a rig site or oil treatment plant in the creeks of Niger Delta before? If you have, you'll know a female engineer wearing a jeans under a coverall isn't making a fashion statement. She's only applying common sense, the same way Paul asked Timothy to apply sense and take wine for his infirmities. Hope you know the coverall is fashioned like a trouser?

Image123: i did not make fun at his condition. It's good to see that what was being driven at is come to light. i simply kidded with him on NOT GIVING TITHE. It's a line that i can jokingly direct at you or frosb or any of the antitithers here. If you or the others have learnt anything from what i teach, you would have smiled over it rightly and not have condemned the guiltless. i know for certain that some folks here would gladly send me to hell if it was in their power, na so the tithe thin pain them reach. lets see how the cop out plays.

Image, it was a very uncharitable, ungracious and very cruel way to talk to a disabled person. No man can blame you if you feel you have heard enough of it but the sensible thing to do was to have simply ignored him.

If it was me or the other usual suspects you threw such at, we'll laugh and give it back to you but this is a blind man and at least you've made him prove it once to you.

Did you even re-read what you typed and posted? Those whose palm kernels are cracked for them by a benevolent spirit should not forget to be humble. Pls always remember this

Whether we stop for 2 months or 2 years makes no difference. You've been on NL since 2008 and you're still talking on tithe. Some of your comrades have been here longer than that and they too refuse to give it up so I wonder what a 2 months abstinence from 2 people will achieve.

Image123: mr, you're not the first disabled fellow. Stop using it for sympathy talk. Sorry but the whole section does not need to know or be reminded about your status. Take it graciously, no bi my fault say windows of heaven no open for your room joor. Your check is gone by 3rd of the month, hose fault or business na. i do not mean to offend you anyway, sincerely. But pls save it.

Are you also trying to catch some fun with Mark's post?

Hope you're still exulting in the ecstacy of the enjoyment you've just had at his expense?

You make fun of a blind man and tell him not to take offense? Your value system beats the imagination

I hope your enjoyment lasts very long indeed

Image123: Nothing special about the two months oh. abi make we make am 3? i'm tryin to help folks deal with their addictions na. lol
But really, if the goal of the thread frm the OP is a finality to these endless tithe talk, strive and back and forth that is said not to be helpin readers, what is the big deal in abstaining from debate for just 2months. BTW, even the proposed discuss might enter two months na. i'm sure if you had agreed, mark will have followed. na you dey waste our time oh abi una dey fear discuss with me. i see, make i go call zukky then.

Really?? Fear you?? Even Gombs who initially offered to participate didn't bring up condition of 2 months abstinence.

If you were standing on the truth, you wont be this evasive bringing up childish excuses and condition. Even if its your G.O that gets courageous enough, tell him to come and let's discuss.

Its only a bible discussion and I'm not afraid of bible study, are you?

Rhymeyjohn: The bold means the fruit of thy seeds and vineyard will be defiled. Am i correct sir?
Rev21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it....., i.e only humans can enter heaven, not vineyard nor seeds, nor an innaminate thing?
Deuteronomy 22:9,.........lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled (not human/man),Rev21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that [b]defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.note it didnt say the fruit of thy seeds and vineyard will be defiled, seeds and vineyard dont get to heaven
YES, but only defiled humans/mankind will not enter heaven not defiled seeds nor vineyards God bless.

If the seeds of the field are defiled, and you eat it what does that make you?

Once again see these verses you pretended not to see

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: l[b]est the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.[/b]

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

These are verses in the same chapter you picked verse 5 from. God said thou shalt not. Do you obey them?