₦airaland Forum

@Ihedinobi

This principle of tithe you talk about, how is it to be complied with today?

If I want to follow the principle of tithe today, how do I do it?

Perhaps if you provide that clarification, it would help to understand your position.

There are two type of devourers – the ones sent by the devil (John 10:10) and the ones sent by God. To deal with the devourers sent by the devil, simply resist him and he will flee from you as long as you are in right standing before God. But to deal with the devourers sent by God, it is through restitution. You will have to cry to God for forgiveness and thereafter undo what made Him to send the devourers in the first place. Do you owe God in tithes, offerings, thanksgiving or vows? Ask for forgiveness and go ahead and pay what you owe. If it is in tithes, also add 20% as interest being the penalty for eating your tithes (Leviticus 27:31).


ACTION POIINT

If you tolerate devourers, God will do nothing about them.

A brief comment on this extract from the pastor's message. In fact, all I will say about the disgraceful rubbish that passes for a "Christian" message is the comment I made on the thread in which it was posted:

"The so-called message ... is a manipulative message bordering on witchcraft. The whole point is to scare unwitting people into emptying their pockets, bank accounts etc for the pastor.

Nothing to do with Christianity, really."

Ihedinobi: I disagree that anyone may impose percentages on anyone else. I hold, in the light I currently possess, that the tithe is not merely a percentage but that it is a command to care for our own. So I'm not entirely comfortable with making the highlighted parts a law of any sort.

I am sure that there is a lesson in Leviticus 27:31, but I don't expect it to be that we need to add 20% to any tithes we neglected to pay in order to be free of any devourer.

We are agreed that no one should make impositions --- in my view whether of percentages or otherwise. If a pastor identifies a particular need what he should do is make a plea or request or even a biblical "demand" i.e. in line with the teaching that we ought to support 'ministry'.

My first problem with your post here is "the tithe"! I do not believe that there is "a tithe" or "the tithe" for the Christian. Rather, my view is that Christians can learn from some principles related to or even underlying Old Testament tithing: support the ministry (OT = Levites/priests), help needy brethren (OT = widows/orphans), help other needy people (OT = aliens/strangers), enjoy yourself (OT = rejoice in the Lord).

You could make a case that a Christian may find it advisable to use 10% of his earnings/incomes as a basis for what to set aside to keep with these principles. However, the New Testament itself does not obligate 10%.

As for lessons from Leviticus, it seems to me that some things and some lessons are pretty clear: the first is the specificity of the definition and demand concerning the Old Testament tithe.

1. It had to be the tenth animal; nothing else. It was not to be substituted; an attempt to substitute it meant both that specific tenth animal and the substitute became holy and could not be redeemed i.e. they could not be bought back with money. This means the tenth animal could not be bought back with money. The tither could not say e.g. 'oh this number 10 animal is my choice animal, can I give money instead of handing it over?' Similarly, the tither could not say 'can I give my number 11 animal instead?' If he said that, then both number 10 and number 11 must be handed over; he could not give money in place of either! Consider this also: if a person had 9 lambs, was he obliged to "tithe" any lamb?

2. Turning to the other aspect of tithes i.e. agricultural produce (seed of the land/fruit of the tree), God indicated that He did not want tithes in money! That is why he said that if a tither preferred to give money instead of the agricultural produce, he must then add a fifth to the value of the agricultural produce tithe! Compare that to the modern obsession with monetary tithe? The question to ask is when did the tithes as defined by God in terms of produce and livestock become or become transferred to the money demands of modern teaching?

3. Most crucially, where did Jesus or any of the apostles teach Christians to "tithe" or how to "tithe" or that "tithe" has now become money instead of what was defined with specificity in Leviticus?

4. OK we still have the matter of Abram in Genesis: well, the question then arises how are we to keep in consonance with what Abram did? To determine this, it is important to note a few things about that particular example: the goods from which Abram tithed to Melchizedek originally belonged to Sodom and Gomorrah as well as to Lot; Abram is said to give tithes of "all"; we read that to mean tithes of the goods of Sodom & Gomorrah and of Lot; then he returned the rest of the goods originally belonging to Sodom & Gomorrah except provisions for his fighters); thus essentially he also returned more or less 90% of the goods of Sodom & Gomorrah.

So, how does that square with modern "tithing"?

5. Again crucially: did Jesus or any of the apostles suggest the use of the example of Abram as a basis for "tithing" by Christians --- or even by the Jews for that matter?

Ihedinobi: Big bro, assuming that some Christian preferred to deal with his tithes as percentages and still kept to the principle of providing for the needy among the brethren and the ministers of the House of God, is he doing wrong adding a fifth to his tenth to restitute if he so pleases?

I will deal with this question as though it is entirely separate from the pastor's message -- as though the pastor's message does not even exist.

First, I do not believe that a Christian has "tithes" so the question of "his tithes" per se has to be understood in a peculiar context. The responsibility (a somewhat better word in this context than 'obligation') is the responsibility of showing gratitude to God as an aspect of loving God and loving neighbour. Part of this is reflected in giving --- giving to support the gospel including 'ministers', giving to support needy brethren and giving to support needy people generally.

The quantum of what to give does not even have to be measured in percentages at all! It is simply a matter of what he chooses, what he 'purports in his heart' which is to take account of his own needs including responsibilities to his own family (blood relatives). In terms of his Christian giving, the question of percentages at all or for that matter "tithes" is a matter entirely for his decision. There are helpful and clear guides in the Bible and especially in the New Testament. The Lord Jesus' statement about helping the hungry, the nak.ed, the prisoner etc is a clear guide: feed, clothe, visit etc. In terms of 'ministers', we are to support them generously and even accord them 'double honour' which means even extra generosity. If what he chooses to add is a fifth, fine! If what he chooses to add is much less, depending on his circumstances, fine.

In light of this, where really is the issue of "restitution" strictly speaking? At a stretch, we could say if a person had intended or desired to give x amount in a particular period but was unable to meet it, it is not a bad thing if he takes that into account next time and increases what he would have then given --- if he can so afford. I do not see that as "restitution". On the other hand, if a person had made a particular vow and was not able to meet it or especially simply did not meet it, again it is not a bad thing if he takes that into account to go beyond the vow when he eventually comes to meet it.

Not of "compulsion" -- as the apostle Paul says.....

2 Corinthians 9
6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Actually, although the poster did have a thing with usernames, I think that post was made out of a genuine realisation/acceptance of some of the points of those challenging the teaching of tithing. That post did me a bit of a favour because I had seen that information on the Web much earlier and "then it was no more". So, I was very pleased when it was unearthed!.

For the benefit of posters here not following the link, here is a taster of the info from the post.

(Taken from websites of RCCG SA and RCCG Netherlands)

Tithe and Offering
Regular payment of tithe and offering is obligatory because it is God's command. It is God's way of providing for the Ministers in the Church. The ministers and other church employees are paid their food, allowance through tithe. The offering is used to cater for the needy in the Church. Tithe and Offering must be paid on every income e.g. salary, profit from business transaction, gifts, etc. Mal. 3:8-12; Gen. 14:19-20; Num. 18:20-21; Deut. 26:12-13; Lev. 27:30; Heb. 7:2-5; I Cor. 16:2; Matt. 23:23. Tithe is exclusively for the minister's welfare.

(all emphases added --- not original)

Especially @Candour

You can continue your learning by reading this post https://www.nairaland.com/413488/tithes-redeemed-church-what-u#5713293

Interesting the poster is known/believed by old hands to be the same person ('lady') that had argued tithing with me extensively prior.

In fact, tithe is sometimes not just a tenth but a specific tenth!

For example, in Leviticus it had to be the tenth animal under the rod, not the 9th, not the 11th, not the 99th or 100th. The tithe of livestock had to be the tenth animal specifically not merely a tenth part of something.

There was even a penalty for trying to substitute the tenth animal!

^^^ I actually have questions for Ihe on those points.

I am still waiting for a more detailed opinion of his on the pastor's message. Then I will answer his original question to me. Thereafter I will deal with a number of points in his subsequent posts.

Should the pastor be teaching such things? Should any Christian be teaching such things?

I will extract the highlighted part again. I actually expected you to address a number of quite specific things he said: e.g. does God send a devourer, does a Christian "owe" God tithes, is it through "restitution" that one deals with a devourer sent by God etc etc etc etc?

There are two type of devourers – the ones sent by the devil (John 10:10) and the ones sent by God. To deal with the devourers sent by the devil, simply resist him and he will flee from you as long as you are in right standing before God. But to deal with the devourers sent by God, it is through restitution. You will have to cry to God for forgiveness and thereafter undo what made Him to send the devourers in the first place. Do you owe God in tithes, offerings, thanksgiving or vows? Ask for forgiveness and go ahead and pay what you owe. If it is in tithes, also add 20% as interest being the penalty for eating your tithes (Leviticus 27:31).


ACTION POIINT

If you tolerate devourers, God will do nothing about them.

^^^ My brother, this is a whole "GO" teaching! And he is perhaps the biggest and most "revered" GO. In addition, he has plenty of form on this kind of thing --- plenty and quite bad!

His followers who are educated would struggle to disagree with him! Imagine the less educated who come from a culture of superstition and fear --- listening to that message and what the effect would be on their understanding of God and of Christianity!

Very sad.

@Ihedinobi

I will answer your question specifically!

First of all, however, the message from the pastor is on the Board now! What is your opinion on it ---- especially the parts highlighted in red.

idnoble135: Whatever you desire sir.
But at the top of the quotation was the statement that read, and here for you. That was almost immediately i said i had questions.
I gave that post not because of anything but to ask you to make comment on it.
This to you is a lie. I also viewed otherwise.
Whatsoever you would bro. Nevertheless, i'm going to respond to your questions later in day.
Good morning.

Whatever.

To be clear, I did not and I do not consider that pointless post of yours to be a question. I actually maintain my original reply to the post.

You are obviously incapable of seeing that you never asked a question other than the irrelevant "isn't that revealing?" after the pointless rant.

In that case, I do not see it worth my while to converse with you.

All the best.

No no no!

You will have to withdraw your allegation; in fact the lie.

You never asked a question that I did not answer other than the irrelevant "is it not revealing" --- after a pointless rant that avoided a question that had been put to you.

If that is your way, and if you do not see it wrong, I am very sorry I will strenuously avoid conversing with you.

Simples.

Look, I am being rather patient with you.

Am I right that it is this post you are referring to as your "question"? https://www.nairaland.com/1456343/tithes-offerings-eternal-principles/6#18445000

If that is the case, where is your question in that other than you saying "is it not revealing" or something like that? Can you not see that it was just an excuse of a rant that did not address the question that was put to you?

Is that not why my initial response was what you quoted?

And my post that I linked for you here https://www.nairaland.com/1456343/tithes-offerings-eternal-principles/8#18453763 do you want to say it does not address the post you are mouthing about?

Honestly, I am being very patient with you here because you are making a clearly false allegation; even an ungrateful allegation after the trouble I took to answer what were actual questions from you.

All good.

I took time out to answer questions you put to me --- which were even irrelevant.

I guess you might be replying referring to an earlier diatribe of yours which at first I did not treat as a question and considered not particularly worthwhile; even that I addressed later on.

Is this the question? https://www.nairaland.com/1456343/tithes-offerings-eternal-principles/6#18445000

If so, you did not see reply here? https://www.nairaland.com/1456343/tithes-offerings-eternal-principles/8#18453763

So why are you lying like this.

Ko buru!

idnoble135: I've read through.
Whatever will not kill a person only makes the person stronger.
I shall reply your posts tomorrow.
@Goshen, let the questions come. No one asked for reduction. Hope you guys can answer mine too(though Enigma already dodged my question).

Do you too have to resort to plain lying?

Issorait.

As I dey go sleep make I do one last yeye!

"Truly I say unto you, as long as you paid tithe to your pastor and Daddy G.O. you paid it to me".

Whether pesin fit find that one inside Bible as we can clearly find it about the homeless, unclothed etc (aka the poor).

@Goshen360, na you go be night guardsman with ya yankee time.

Now, I think we are entitled to ask how our brothers have never seen an "eternal principle" in respect of giving to the poor especially when we place Mark 10 21 in the context of the important passage in Matthew 25.

Alright, if our brothers say that they also see an "eternal principle" in respect of giving to the poor, we will then ask:

1. Why is it that giving to the poor is not preached as vehemently and vociferously as tithing?
2. As between the "eternal principle" of tithing and the "eternal principle" of giving to the poor, which is more important? (Which even falls into weightier matters of the law such as justice and mercy and even faithfulness?)
3. Since we have found a way to make the "eternal principle" of tithing a monthly (or regular) affair, have we made the "eternal principle" of giving to the poor a monthly (or regular) affair?
4. How do we know what percentage we should use for the "eternal principle" of giving to the poor? Should we not also use 10% since it was commanded that at least one type of tithe was to be given to the poor? In that case, should we not also be giving 10% every month to comply with the other "eternal principle" of giving to the poor?
5. As between the "eternal principle" of tithing and the "eternal principle" of giving to the poor, which one did Jesus more directly instruct! Which one did Jesus more clearly instruct?
6. As between the "eternal principle" of tithes and the "eternal principle" of giving to the poor, which one even seems to be more directly linked to salvation or at least eternal rewards?
7. Did Jesus say anything about the "eternal principle" of tithing in such serious terms as He spoke about giving to the poor?




Mark 10:21
Jesus said: “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Matthew 25
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’



PS Although this Mark 10:21 has taught a us a few things in this thread, I hope we return to a similar question that had earlier been asked by Candour about Matthew 23:3. I am now desperately interested in what technical means our friends will use to escape that one as they are trying to do with Mark 10:21!

Oh, one more!

If the "tithe" of Matthew 23:23 is because of "principle": when did that principle become converted or applicable to money, kudi, cash among the Pharisees or Israelites?

Where and when did the Pharisees or Israelites give money as "tithes" because of "principle"?

Moving on swiftly ....

A propos this "principle" business: the principle of which "tithe" was Jesus talking about in Matthew 23:23?

1. Was it the "tithe" of Abram of Genesis 14?
- If so, which war did the Pharisees fight and who was the Melchizedek that they were giving mint, anise and cummin to?
- Or were they giving the mint, anise & cummin to Jesus?
- If not to Jesus, then who was the priest of the order of Melchizedek that they were giving them to?

2. Was it the tithing mentioned in Numbers?
- Thus, were they giving the mint, anise & cummin to the Levites/Levitical priests?
- Or, were the Pharisees giving mint, anise & cummin to Jesus?
- If not to Jesus, who was the priest of the order of Melchizedek that they were giving them to?

3. Was it the tithe mentioned in Deuteronomy?
- Thus, were they giving the mint, anise & cummin to widows, orphans, strangers and Levites as that book required?
- Or, were the Pharisees giving mint, anise & cummin to Jesus?
- If not to Jesus, who was the priest of the order of Melchizedek that they were giving them to?

4. Was it the tithe mentioned in Leviticus?
- Thus, did they also give the very specific tenth animal under the rod?
- If so, who did they give the tenth animal under the rod to?
- Or, were the Pharisees giving the tenth animal plus mint, anise & cummin to Jesus?
- If not to Jesus, who was the priest of the order of Melchizedek that they were giving them to?

5. Was it the tithe mentioned in Malachi?
- If so what/where is the storehouse that they were bringing all the tithes to?
- If this one is because of the "principle" of the Abram tithe, why was there a curse about devourers?
- If this one is the "principle" of the Abram tithe, why would anyone be seen as "robbing God" when it was simply a matter of the Heart?
- Can you be robbing God if you do not give voluntarily what God did not ask you for?

6. Was it the tithe mentioned in Nehemiah?
- If so where/what is the storehouse?
- If so, why is it that the tithes were to be brought to the Levites?
- If so, why is it that the Levites were to bring a tenth of the tithes to the storehouse? (Not even the whole tithes but a tithe of the tithes!)

7. If it is "principle" of "tithes" more generally, why did Jesus never ask anybody to give/pay Him tithes?

8. If it is "principle" of "tithes" more generally, why did none of the apostles ever ask anybody to give/pay them tithes? Not even Paul --- who spoke a lot about giving?

I didn't take any offence my brother.

idnoble135: @Enigma, i owe you no explanation. If God is not exhibiting double standard as shown you in two different verses in Acts, why do you still say i have double standard. Those two instances are way out of the world different. Even the intent and principle are different. Biko, bring something new.

You are right, you owe me no explanation and I accept that.

Here is a question I put to idnoble earlier:

Jesus spoke to the youth ---- according to the law; was He not also speaking to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23 according to the law when He said they ought to have tithed mint, cummin etc?

Now he says he asked me a question that I did not answer. I disagree with this. What I see, rather, is him going to technical analysis to say that Jesus' statement to the youth does not apply to Christians.

Perhaps he does not see his own double-standard but we see it and we have been pointing it out to him; his failing to see it or pretending not to see it after it was pointed out to him is inexcusable. This is what makes further discussion with him on this particular matter quite pointless.

Let me point out the double-standard again in stark relief: if one honestly applies the very same technical analysis to Jesus' statement to the Pharisees etc, it will be clear as day that the statement that they should have tithed mint, anise, cummin does NOT apply to Christians!

Rather, our brother chose to pull the "principle" trick. But of course, he does not see "principle" in the statement to the youth!

Also, our brother's "principle" suddenly converts mint, anise, cummin into money, cash, currency! Not only that, it also converts it to monthly payment of monetary tithes --- to "church" or maybe to pastor!

The "principle" does not include the "tithe" that the Bible clearly says should be given to widows, orphans and strangers. It does not also compare that to Jesus' direction that as long as we give to such people, we give to Him. "Principle" is nowhere to be found in respect of that of course!

Nah, I don't think I'll bother to "re-read and try to re collect"!

And yes, if I see anything I wish to contribute to I will.

^^^ What are you talking about?

Thanks and yes you have given an 'answer'. I do believe that you honestly think your answer is satisfactory. I think it is not and that it is far from satisfactory.

I am happy to leave it at that. However, I am not going to unfollow the thread; if I see anything I wish to contribute to, I will.

I'm afraid saying ridiculous things is in itself an invitation to be ridiculed!

Saying that the tithing of mint, anise and cummin by Pharisees who were upbraided with 'woes' is an "eternal principle" is a big invitation to ridicule.

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

idnoble135: @Enigma, i have not asked an
question on tithe yet. Oga oo.
1. The Holy Spirit was given to
those in the old testament.
Not to
dwell in them but upon them. The Holy Spirit could
withdraw from them.
Thats why David cried, "do
not take your Spirit from
me". But with us
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would abide with us forever.
John 14:16.
That debunks your statement
still.
2. Lol! I get your point. But in
whatever case, the passage in 1 Cor
does not apply to my
question.
3. Cornelius could not have
known about Jesus. If he
knew, he would have believed. The words of
the angel confirms this. The
introduction
of Jesus by Peter to them
showed they never knew.
4. I already did, Jesus did not cancel tithe. It even predated
the
law. It was not just a matter
of the law.
5. The gift of the Holy Spirit is
not God's responsibility. God gave
the Holy Spirit only in chapter
one. The other times, we are told the recieved the gift. But in chapter ten, God gave the gift who were yet still not born again.
My point which you have tried to ignore is that God operated two different principles. We still remember Jesus saying the world could not recieve the Holy Spirit. Those folks were still not yet in the Kingdom(Rom 10:10) but God gave them.
Now that this has been said, i showed you already that Mark could not apply and why. Dont know what you want me to say again.
But i do have questions pls. Questions related to the topic.
If you are not "interested in the discussion", we could draw the curtains.

Unfortunately, you do not really realise how ignorant and misinformed about scriptures you are. And it is quite painful anytime I see a brother who has been hoodwinked by false doctrine such that they cannot or that they even refuse to see clearly.

This problem is why you have of course been unable to answer this simply question straight or honestly: why should we follow the statement on "tithes" but not the one on eternal life?

I don't think I will deal with anything else in your post; it is just not worth it!

For a start, I'm not really interested in this discussion and it is a digression on this thread. I only indulged because I said I'd answer.

Second, you are under some misconceptions and you have not really understood my answers or the relevant passages. I will try once more with some of the points in your post but I do not think I wlll answer any further questions on this particular matter.

idnoble135: @Enigma, maybe i should quote the scripture.
Then Peter said, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38

It still does not say that they must be baptised in order to receive!

idnoble135: Hope you noticed the connection? But that aside, thats not where i'm going to.
The important thing is the gift of the Holy Spirit was for those who had accepted Christ and were now God's children.

The gift of the Holy Spirit was actually given to a number of people in the Old Testament --- even before Jesus came let alone before He died!

idnoble135: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your
salvation; in whom also,
having believed, you were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise

Yep, the sealing of the Spirit is another gift of God which helps Christians with assurance --- knowing that they are and will be saved, no matter what.

idnoble135: That now established.
You talking about Apostle Paul. I did not type that they had to repent to recieve the Holy Spirit. No! I said he told the disciples to be baptized with the baptism of the Lord.

Yes he told them to be baptised; but this was after they had already believed or after they were already saved!

idnoble135: Thirdly, the verse that you gave in 1 Cor does not rhyme with what we are saying. The verse talks of desiring gifts . The Holy Spirit is a gift not gifts.

The giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is a gift; the giving of the Holy Spirit for indwelling is a gift; the giving of the Holy Spirit for sealing is a gift. The giving of spiritual gifts is a gift. They are all gifts. You should be careful about use of English and semantics and making irrelevant "spiritual" distinctions.

idnoble135: Therefore, that verse does not apply.

If you say so!

idnoble135: Besides, how can they desire the Holy Spirit if they knew nothing about Him or Jesus?

They knew about Jesus alright; they just did not know about the Holy Spirit.

idnoble135: That point is invalid..

Again, if you say so!

idnoble135: Now, the thing i'm saying here is, you said i was dishonest because a verse applied to Mark but not to Mathew.

I did not say this at all!

idnoble135: Meaning i'm using different principles.

Well, you still haven't shown us how Jesus was speaking to the youth in Mark 10:21 under the law but not to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23 under the law!

idnoble135: But God using different principles here must be dishonest too. Agree?
If your answer is no, then, i'm not guilty.

In the example you have tried to use, I don't see where God has used different principles. The gift of the Holy Spirit is entirely at the choice and pleasure of God --- in all of the examples you gave. It is still at His choice and pleasure today. What is more even the timing is at His choice and pleasure and that is one of the significant differences in the examples you are relying on.

Earlier, you said it took you a long time to understand a particular verse? Well, I guess and hope you will understand my post and the verses eventually.

Meanwhile, consider this: no one under the Old Testament was saved by the law.

idnoble135: Okkkk....
Related to your earlier comment but not exactly on the topic.
In Acts 2:38, Peter spoke UNDER THE ANOINTING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT that the people must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus to be recieve the Holy Spirit.

Peter did not say the people must repent and be baptised in order to receive the Holy Spirit. He urged them to repent and be baptised and assured them that they will receive the Holy Spirit.

idnoble135: Apostle Paul also showed the same in Chapter 19 where the disciples had to be baptized under with the baptism of the Lord before he laid hands on them to recieve the Holy Ghost.

I imagine you are referring to Acts 19:1-4 here. Again Paul did not say they must repent (they had even already repented) and be baptised in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

idnoble135: But in Acts 10, the people were baptized in the Holy Ghost even though they had not yet accepted Christ by confessing Him as Lord neither were they baptized with water.
If Peter said that (Acts 2:38) under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, then, is God not dishonest to have done otherwise in chapter ten?

No! What you have to understand is that the gift of the Holy Spirit in that extraordinary way is entirely at the choice and pleasure of God!

In the Cornelius example, God Himself chose to give that gentile household that particular gift to let the apostles and us know that 'there is neither Jew nor gentile' in His kingdom!

And as for the gift of the Spirit in extraordinary ways being at the choice of God, think about 1 Cor 12: 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

idnoble135: 1. He spoke to him as regarding the law because the issue was basically how to get eternal life. And the young man could not get it through Jesus because He had not yet died on the cross ......

Actually, I should not let you get away with this; at the least I should again ask you to go and think about this carefully. Consider the following passages:

John 10
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 17
2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

John 6
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.