₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
This is the same John who heard these exact words - Mark 1:9. In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou are my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

how come John still doubted who exactly Christ was?

@davidylan,

You seem to be getting further away from the basic enquiry. Let me outline them for you:

(a) doubting "the existence of God"

(b) doubting "who exactly Christ was"

These are two doubts, and they are worlds apart.

There are many people who doubt who Christ was - that is not the same thing as doubting the existence of God. Even in the New Testament, there are many who doubted several things about Him:

     ~ whether He was the Christ (Matt. 26:63[b]a[/b], Luke 22:67), or:

     ~ whether He was the Son of God (Matt. 26:63[b]b[/b], Luke 22:70), or:

     ~ whether He was indeed the King of the Jews (Matt. 27:11);

     ~ or, yet again, just plainly: "Who art thou?" (John 8:25)

All these and many questions were not asked by anyone who was considering losing faith in GOD. They all believed in God, though they wondered about the identity of Christ - two things that are worlds apart. Many people who are NOT Christians also believe in God, though they do not believe in Christ - does that make them atheists?

huxley2:
1)  Explore alternatives to your religion, including other religions (the supernatual option) and/or non-religious or naturalistic alternatives,

>snip<

My advice to you would be to pursue option 1).  After all, ALL religions CANNOT be right and you own yourself to find out which one (if any) is the right one.  The Islamicist claim their religion is right, so do the Christians, the Jews, etc, etc.  Whose claim to you think is justified?

The non-religious and naturalists cannot all be right as well - they also contradict themselves in so many instances. We should ask them as well: whose claim (among the same non-religious and naturalists) is justified?

davidylan:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=274559.msg3897739#msg3897739 date=1242847273]However, it often holds true that when someone has experienced God's loving grace for himself or herself, they do not begin to 'lose' their faith in Him.

I dont think so . . . John the Baptist saw the miracles, he saw the dove on Christ as he baptized Him . . . in prison he had cause to doubt whether Christ was truly the Messiah.[/quote]@davidylan,

Thanks for your observation, but I think you got it all mixed up. In all of those things, John the Baptist did not doubt the existence of God; and that is not the same as doubting who exactly Christ was. These are entirely two different things. The former may tend to atheism; the latter does not, but only enquires about the identity of the Messiah. Blessings.

blackspade:
My whole family believes in god and I do too, but recently (as in the last few months) I've been questioning myself with things such as: does god exist? what if religion is just one of the worlds longest running fairytales? why are there so many contradictions in the bible? am I wasting my time worshipping something I can't see? is christianity just a mechanism used by europeans to spread their idealogy and culture?

I want to believe in god, and recognize some of the things in life that we can't explain, and can only be explained by god, but sometimes I just don't know. I've been feeling a little depressed lately, so maybe that has something to do with it, I don't know. What the hell is wrong with me? Am I just going through a phase?

@blackspade,

The highlights are things we encounter in almost every facet of life - it is not limited to religion or one's faith. These three things -

          'contradictions'

          'unseen realities'

          'unexplained phenomena'

. . all three things exist in other fields of enquiries and worldeviews. There are as many contradictions, unseen realities and unexplianed phenomena in politics, culture, evolutionary biology, sports, worldviews. . . you name it. There's hardly any religion that can boast that it has not a tint of contradiction; nor can anyone honestly say that scientists do not contradict themselves. Yet for all that, people do not stop believing what they believe in these matters which they hold dear to themselves; the bigger question, however, is WHY they believe what they do. This is where one comes to the question of experience - and many people who have passed through unspeakable experiences know for themselves why they believe in God, regardless the other two features: 'unseen realities' and things which are 'unexplained phenomena'.

One does not have to answer every single question in life before they can believe in the supernatural - and as long as the fact of the supernatural cannot be denied (even though many times unexplained), it makes one humble enough to seek God for himself or herself. I hope this helps as a starting point.

Could I throw in a small piece in here?

SeanT21:
You where never a "true" believer in the first place if U have to question your faith.

Perhaps, that's not the best place to start. No. There's no reason to not question one's faith; afterall, Christ often called His listeners to "understand" what He was teaching (see Mark 7:14 - ". .He had called all the people unto Him, He said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand".

However, it often holds true that when someone has experienced God's loving grace for himself or herself, they do not begin to 'lose' their faith in Him.

abose:
You are alright PG.1 whether we agree or not as we are all trying to serve God to the best of our abilities. A healthy debate is always good to have. God bless.

Bless your heart, abose.

ttalks:
Pilgrim.1, could u care to give them a try? 

@ttalks,

I've always been very open to discuss/dialogue - you know that. If someone asks questions but is not as genial nor willing to engage in a healthy discussion, why waste precious time on him? (recall - here and here). Much regards.

@abose,

How body? I trust you're enjoying the day. Glory to God for all things.

abose:
Anyone who has watched these "churches" (Nigerian or not) and don't see a pattern is probably not looking. I love this guy's post, it sums up all we've been trying to say in this thread:

Mesef, I like the guy's post, even if not efry-thing he talk dey okay. We just let the bobo's post stand, for the simply reason that he was not condeming tithes at all (afterall, he actually did say: "Tithing is good for supporting the needs of the church". Now, if we check his post again, we see his persuasion goes something like this:
>> [list]

The matter of fact is that the tithe is from the Old Testament. Jesus says, "I give you a new testament love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul. And love your brother as yourself." The Old Testament for the Jews is abolished.

[/list]

Yes, to love God and neighbour is directly from the Old Testament - that Jesus quoted it from the OT does not make it "new", because He was responding to someone's question about the commandment in the Law - compare: Matt. 22:36-39 with Deut. 6:5 --

                  Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
                  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
                  with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
                  This is the first and great commandment.
                  And the second is like unto it,
                  Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So, when we say that the Law has been abolished, we've got to be careful what we mean; for that idea ("the Old Testament for the Jews is abolished" does not mean therefore we should also "abolish" Deuteronomy 6:5 - afterall, this is also in the "Old Testament", abi? Nobody has been saying that "part of" the OT is abolished - many have argued that "the OT" (the entire OT) is "abolished" - nothing remain again, no be so? If na so, why not also "abolish" this verse, since it is the same "OT"?

In any case, we understand our bros JPot, so no need to worry.

However, the 'new covenant' which He made in His blood (Luke 22:20) brings us into the understanding of what God desires of us who properly respond to His grace in Christ.

abose:
I have not come across any rejection of Christ on any post regardless of the position though some have gone as far as label those who object to % based giving as "robbing God".
Those who impose "tithe" or advocate it are actually the ones robbing God (if there is anything like that) because I don't think my God can be robbed by satan let alone man.

No wahala, as those who make a choice of our own free wills to tithe (yes, we choose "% based giving" - 1 Cor. 16:2), we wonder how that could be 'robbing God'. You may not think this or that, but God said by Himself that: 'Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed Me' (Mal. 3:8) - do we still wonder about what you think: "let alone man"?

No, we're not accusing you - you're free to choose, and we respect your choice, abi?

abose:
I won't even touch the OBJ reference so my sister PG.1 won't jump on me for getting off topic 

That is the point, my broder. . PG.1 is not out to jump on you. I apologise if you felt that way in the past - but for Christ's sake, I appreciate you. Enjoy

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
[quote author=JJYOU link=topic=263218.msg3871532#msg3871532 date=1242387206]is it not a christian duty to be truthful and answer simple questions?

No, I do not believe that is a christian duty to answer any question asked of you.[/quote]One may read your response was a little away from what JJYOU asked. His question was about being "truthful" and to answer "simple" questions; not whether the duty falls on answering 'ANY' question. These are two entirely different things.

Pastor AIO:
And on the subject of Duty, I believe that christians are each given an appropriation according to the spirit in them.  It seems to me that Kunle is being inspired to speak about Tithes and it's abuse.

That may well be - we just would like to know whether it was his "duty" to argue against "tithes" or rather to speak out against its "abuse" - again, two entirely different things. If 'Tithes' was Kunle's wahala, then we would like to know why he was making it "perfectly okay" for Christians to do so; but if the abuse was rather the case, why use an abuse to argue against tithes?

Pastor AIO:
That there are worse forms of extortion going on in the church has nothing to do with it.

Oh, I see. I hope he takes note then and altogether let up on connecting tithes and "extortion" in the manner he has been doing. Extortion is not synonymous with 'Tithes'; and one wonders why anytime anti-tithers hear the word, the first thing that must ring in their mind is 'extortion, fraud, ' etc. Okay, we may note that 'worse forms of extortion' have nothing to do with tithes - but what then is the real problem: the tithe in itself or the extortion?

Pastor AIO:
If you all feel so badly about the other forms of extortion then maybe that is your appropriation to speak out about those.

Everyone feels badly about 'extortion', regardless the form it takes. Just because some have been using one form or another does not mean that we must all focus on just one form and make claims that can't stand when examined closely. That would be argument by demagoguery, not reasoning from reality.

Pastor AIO:
However all that is happening now is rather than doing your part you are busying yourself with interfering with someone else doing his part.

Nope, that is not true. If "someone else" groups ALL tithers in the manner they do, then those who fall into the latter group would feel led to speak up and correct certain misconceptions being bantered around by this "someone else". He should know that there is a manner in which one conveys his concerns healthily that may be of benefit both to himself and others who read his comments. Where readers find some of his concerns untenable, there's nothing wrong in joining in the discussion to examine those claims closely and retire the misconceptions - this does not necessarily mean that one is "interferring" with someone else whose "duty" is to make such untenable claims.

Pastor AIO:
Kunle cannot solve all the problems in Christianity.

Nobody is asking him to do so.

Pastor AIO:
He can only do that which has been apportioned for him to do. Everybody had their part to play.   It's like a football game.  The defenders have to defend, the strikers have to score.  The playmakers have to create opportunities.  Only the manager should busy himself with the overall strategy.  When the striker, instead of trying to score busies himself with seeking faults with the defenders and the playmakers chances are that the entire team will lose the game.

I appreciate your analogy, for the sake of analogy.

Pastor AIO:
As it stands it sounds like a guy who gets pulled over by police for speeding and then he starts complaining that there are murderers and thieves out there and the police are wasting time arresting people for the relatively innocuous crime of speeding. That argument ain't gonna help him none.

I hope "he" takes it to heart. Either way, there's no reason that just because there are murderers out there, then speeding to break the law would be a "less" crime for the offender to be apprehended.

KunleOshob:
Internet discussion forums are mostly anonimous and that is why children like you and jjyou find it easy to insult people i am quite certain that he can't look me in the face and say all the rubbish he writes here.

There's no need for the ad hominem - that has been said again and again (just recently in Pastor AIO's again). There's no need for that. If you have something healthy to give, regardless whatever you call people, just make your point and please be consistent in what you say. That way, people can be benefitted and edified. Let's not be drawn again into this unnecessary banter that you seem to like. Shalom.

KunleOshob:
I am really sick of this your rants, if you really want to know my age perhaps you should meet me in person then you would be able to confirm. If you stay in Lagos i would be willing to oblidge you an appointment and lets see if you would be able to look me in the face.

Wetin you wear for face wey person no fit look you?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Now, while I haven't actually done a statistical test to determine what percentage of churches preach compulsory tithes, it seems to me that at least 90% of the churches that I am familiar with, probably 98% of nigerian pentecostal churches make a big deal of tithes as a compulsory matter.  And even those that do not say it is compulsory teach that there are special benefits to be accrued by the person tithing.  

Now, it could be that Pilgrim and others have not come into contact with these other churches that use tithes as a means of extortion.  That is possible which would mean that the 2 sides of the argument are coming from two very different experiences so there is no common ground on which they could both argue from.  
I tend towards siding with Kunle because my experience of churches using tithes to extort tallies with his, but I can accept the possibility that others have never come across churches that do this.

It is not quite wholesome to make such generalizations. I've once argued against tithing before I had a rethink after seeing that so many of the arguments used against it are mere rhetorics which cannot be sustained when closely examined. This is why you will find that so many people who make anti-tithing assertions cannot defend what they say when questioned.

On the whole, I'm very well informed about what is going on about the means of extortion that many people use - it is NOT limited to tithes, and the other means are by far the most employed for the same effect. The only reason why many people assume that we don't know this is because they haven't done their research properly - and in most cases, they don't even know what is going on in the real world. This is the reason why I often leave verifiable pointers when I discuss this issue (as I did here).

Cheers.

Pastor AIO:
After thinking about this further, I've come to realise that it is quite a gem. A perfectly circular way of reasoning. Starting with the argument, we consider that such a poor argument can only be made by someone who is immature. So we determine the person's age to be quite young. If we then establish the age to be young we can then apply the ad hominem and say 'ah, small boy, no wonder he makes such poor arguments.

And of course if we find the guy to be older than us then he is an agbaya.

Lol, nope - let's not go there. He's neither 'small' nor 'agbaya'. Either ways, it does not really add to the substance of the discussion, you no agree? So, we should all adjust and discourage the [i]ad hominem[/i]s. . . which is (perhaps) what I read in yours.

KunleOshob:
What you fail to realize is most people tithe because they have been mis-led and manipulated into believing that tithing is compulsary for them to practise as believers,

And your point is. . .? If you're going to be honest, the fact that some people tithe because they assume it is compulsory does not warrant your shouting against tithes every time the word is mentioned. That attitude is unhealthy. A better approach is to encourage people to tithe without arguing the "compulsory" mantra every time - afterall, those of us who have been sharing about why we choose to tithe have made it clear that we do so out of our own voluntray and happy will, and because we're informed about its meaning and blessings. If that is clear, why keep repeating the same thing so many times as if you didn't see it the first time?

KunleOshob:
if you want to be honest you would admit that most preachers preach tithes from malachi 3 which they then twist to mean money from income and they present it as compulsary and non negotiable for christians to practise

Let me ask you: are you not the same fellow who actually said tithing "is perfectly okay" for the Christian, as I quoted above earlier? Did you reason about whether it was money  or any other thing before making it "perfectly okay"? Malachi is not your problem - this complaint is becoming more an excuse to be as many times inconsitent as you can afford to be. Many people have abused nearly all the verses in the Bible - why not for the same reason condemn ALL other verses just because they are being abused?

KunleOshob:
they also utlize the curses and blessings in the passage to further intimidate and lure christians into parting with their money.

Unhealthy repetition. Look for another excuse.

KunleOshob:
As i have always said i have nothing against tithers infact i have pity for them as they are being defrauded on a regular basis and they think they are doing the will of God. it is the "compulsary" tithe preaching pastors that i detest.

No, rather you're not at peace with yourself that is why you feel pity for others who choose to tithe. They don't beg you for money to tithe, they don't drag you to tithe, they do not take out of your personal property - so what is this cark about feeling "sorry"  for them? Are you so unaware that many tithers are quite informed about fraudsters with a 'pastor' badge? That such abuses occur in every place does not mean we should stop tithing.  Please refrain from this excuse - we have heard it so many times now that it makes one feel you're running out of steam to make any meaning contribution to the subject.

KunleOshob:
Whilst we condenm all methods used by these crooks to defraud christians we emphasize more on tithes becos this is the most instituitional fraud in christianity and the biggest established fraud in the history of mankind.

That's not true - you need to do your research properly. The number of people who tithe is a mere decimal compared to those who are anti-tithers - in the Church! YET, it is well established that even when fewer Christians tithe, the fraud you complain about has trebled! Read up the findings of the Barna group, and you will see the fact. Since this debate spilled about tithing, all that the anti-tithers have achieved is discourage people believers from giving to further the Gospel - Christian giving has not increased, but decreased! Yet, televangelists have used other methods to multiply their wealth! What are anti-tithers doing about that?

KunleOshob:
I quote Jeremiah 8 becos the reason why preachers twist the scriptures is clearly stated there which is greed and fraud.

False - Jeremiah 8 has nothing to do with tithes. You only quoted it as a weapon against others simply because you're not seeking to be reasonable.

KunleOshob:
This would help christians better to understand the reason why food/ meat in malachi was twisted to mean money /income and why preachers preach tithing at all. It is all greed and the bible says so.

So, tell us: since you are persuaded that tithing should not be money, what type of tithing did you say is "perfectly okay" (whatever percentage of his income, as you said)? We want to know the type that you make a perfectly okay matter while quarrelling against money tithes.

@Kunle,

I wonder what your real problem actually is. Let me ask: is there anything you personally gain from your inconsitent arguments? You're not making a balanced case for whatever you believe on this subject, and the same repetitions you make are really a put off. I say this in a kind manner and not engaging in a shouting match with anyone. So, please carefully consider your position.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

[quote author=JJYOU link=topic=263218.msg3871008#msg3871008 date=1242381159]
kunle, how does this your shouting edify Christ or win the lost? you are such unbelievable human being. again i want to ask how old are you?[/quote]@JJYOU,
I was going to say nearly the same thing about edification after reading his, but you anticipated me. We all make mistakes - I've made the mistake as well of being drawn into such an unfruitful shouting monologue with him, and what benefit came off of that? No matter how many times one makes the same observation, it probably won't stick with him. Anyhow bros, enjoy your day and blessings in all you do.

@abose,

abose:
2 Corinthians 9:10 (King James Version)

10Now 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

Am I missing something here PG.1?

Please tell me, because apart from quoting it, you haven't said anything. I have several translations and versions of the Bible in my library and could have done the same. So please, tell us what you're missing, biko.

abose:
Jesus enjoined us to give unlike the pharisees
The poor, orphans and widows didn't have to tithe though today's "churches" will swiftly take the last dime of a poor widow or orphan in the name of seed sowing.

Ah, I see - was that a desperate detour? The reason I'm asking is that nobody has been discussing the pharisees here with you; so what necessitates your bringing in that one here? And did I ever say anywhere that widows or orphans were commanded to tithe anywhere?

abose:
There is no rejection or condemnation of those on the opposite isle of this thread.

No, but they are not at peace with themselves until they deride others with "delusion", no?

abose:
I don't know that you can choose to do something that is "required" or "mandated"

Oh, you don't? I see. You want us to go into that one yet again? I'll gladly oblige you - just indicate a 'yes', and let's see how much of it you obey

abose:
We happen to be Christians who love Jesus and refuse to be "instructed" on how/when to give.

Good one - which is why you don't need instruction from the Bible. I don talk am plenty times: since you are too good and high above others so that you don't need to dialogue with them, what's the point being reactive and restless over what others are finding to cheerfully obey in God's Word?

abose:
Anyone who thinks the devil is not inside some "churches" need to stop deluding themselves, look at our Lord's prayer and compare it to some you hear/see, some of them sounds like ogun incantations if you ask me

Hehe, broderly. . shé na tithes we dey discuss - abi we don leave dat one now to begin anoda wahala with whether churches get devil or not? Wetin bring 'ogun incantation' inside tithe again? haba!

seyenko:
i think there is really no point in arguing about this issue, if you believe in the old order then you must obey the 613 laws of moses in leviticus, deutoromony and numbers. You will have to stone adulters to death, you will have to stay indoors on saturday and not on sunday so that you keep the sabbath holy.

@seyenko,

Please tell us: how many tithers have you read in this thread saying that they give their tithes based on the "old order"? It seems you are too eager to just make a case where you can't defend it. So, what then - if we don't believe in the old order, then we have to stop giving any percentage of our income as Christians, abi?

First of all, please drop the farce of a "613" laws of Moses - if you carefully read your Bible, you as a Christian will find that the commandments and laws (the mitzvot/mitzvahs) contained in the Mosaic Law are more than "613". They are variously expressed expressed in the OT as -
      * ordinances,
      * commandments,
      * laws,
      * statutes,
      * precepts,
      * judgements,
. . and several other terms in various verses. The number "613" is an arbitrary number chosen by Jewish scholars based on Maimonides' enumeration (365 negative commandments, corresponding to the number of days in a solar year, and 248 positive commandments, ascribed to the number of bones and significant organs in the human body). Another thing you will notice is that several of those commandments enumerated are repeated as if they are different from those already stated.

When people often make this excuse of writing off tithing as always and only of the Law or "old order", they often forget that once they throw ALL the commandments away, there's nothing left of their own Christianity. Go through your list and see if there are not so many of them that are part of the Christian faith. And what happens if you select some and throw the rest away - is that not selective reading?

Relax, nobody has said that their tithing is based on the "old order", and your exercise at best was unnecessary.

Cheers.

KunleOshob:
Nobody is condenming tithes payers apart from the fact that they stand a risk of cutting themselves off the grace of christ[galatians 5:4] if they are tithing as a result of compulsion preached from the law i.e malachi 3:10. However our more severe complaints is against these criminally inspired so -called men of God who are imposing on people what God does NOT require of christians all becos of their greedy desires, that apart the other danger of this tithe doctrine is that "believers" feel they have done their christian duty by paying tithes[which jesus did not instruct] whilst ignoring the direct instructions of Jesus christ to help the needy. Helping the less priviledge is a major and central focus of christianity but today due to the greed of our so called christian leaders they are more interested in you giving everything to the church so they relegate the need to teach giving to the poor[which is our mandated christian duty] to the background.

It's alright to have 'severe complaints' against those whom you described above: we're all concerned about fraud and all such things. But no one needs to argue against tithes if even you can acknowledge you've nothing against tithers; so why this needless sung about being cut off from Christ, when no-one is saying they are tithing based on the Levitical law? We've lost count of the number of times that those who genuinely tithe have said they do so freely and cheerfully without any sense of compulsion or greed. Also, you stated sometime ago that "it is perfectly okay" to tithe if a Christian "knows the truth about tithes and he is tithing or giving whatever percentage of his income to the church out of his own desire to contribute to the church," abi? That is what tithers have been saying consistently - that they do so out of their own desire. It seems that is not sufficient, and anti-tithers would still seek to be derisive at those who choose to tithe.

Sometime ago you acknowledged that people who defraud believers use all kinds of other means and terms, including seed sowing, sacrificial offering, faith offering, first fruits, etc (if I remember well). At least, we know that the NT speaks about 'seed sowing'; and if these fraudsters have also used that, why are anti-tithers not condemning it as well?

Helping the needy is not the only or more important aspect of our Christian giving. Did Christ not ordain giving to those who preach the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 9:14?  What about godly elders - from where are their salaries for ministry to come if we pay less attention to this aspect (1 Tim. 5:16-17)? Many anti-tithers who do not like to hear about "Christian duty" in giving a percentage of our income to support the Church, are yet the same folks who make other types of giving a "duty" in Christianity. Who's now turning giving into an "obligation"?

And yes, you've quoted Jeremiah 8 repeatedly and yet it's not helping your complaints. Perhaps you need to apply your usual logic and understand Jeremiah was not complaining against tithes/tithers at all.

kantoma:
I think even as "Zombees" as we are, could someone tell me that we would be rejected by God and be sent to hell for the giving of 10% of our income to God? And if what we are doing is not a sin, then what's all these fuzz about?

Dear kantoma,

No worry yourself by repeating that simple statement. Dem no get answer, so e go just dey vex anti-tithers for body. It is well - give as your heart lead you in Jesus' Name.

@abose,

abose:
It is my humble opinion that we should leave these "tithers" to their own delusions.

Thank you. We won't return the 'compliments'.  

abose:
The tithe Abraham gave to Melchizedek had to be a pagan tithe because God only required 1% at that time from the spoils of war.

This is another recycled piece of work from Russell Kelly - and it has become redundant, I'm afraid. Just Google it up and you will find Russell never ever was able to intelligently address the issue when challenged about where from Scripture he got the "pagan tithes" for Abraham - at best, he made it up, so it is not surprising to read you infer that it "had to be" pagan tithe. The amazing thing is how you would draw this idea that "God only required 1%" - and yet still connect it with "pagan" tithe. Lol, please think a bit more. And psst: it was NOT "1%" - if you're referring ti Numbers 31. Go do the small Maths.

abose:
These tithers need to update their knowledge of Babylonian practices to see that a lot of those practices had Arab pagan origin, the tithe to the king of Sodom represents what then?

Dear abose, no be fight, you hear? You may think others to be deluded, but wake up and read the Bible - there is nothing in Genesis 14 to suggest that Abraham gave tithes to the king of Sodom! Haba!  Besides, Abraham's tithes was not 'Babylonian' (still on your "pagan tithe", otherwise you may have to come forward and tell us how "God only required 1%" of that "Babylonian" practice.

abose:
I need these guys to show me an instance of Gentiles paying tithe, were tithes collected outside of the land of Israel?

Lol, we can show you, if you care enough to see it. Let's start from here: go ask Russell and co where they got the idea that other nations also indulged in the practice of 'tithing' apart from Genesis 14. If he cannot show you, then stop recycling his fallacies. As for the collection of tithes outside the land of Israel, have you ever heard the word 'Terumah'? Nevermind whether or not others are deluded, just you try and read up a bit more, yes?

abose:
I am yet to see where "sowing a seed" equates money, lots of these "above reproach" Christians really are lost or have been turned into "zombies"

We hear. Please tell us what Paul meant in 2 Cor. 9:10 by 'seed sown', and that will do for now.

abose:
Earthly benefits is for pagans, we as Christians have been cautioned to lay up our treasures in Heaven

I hear - please remove Luke 6:38 and Mark 10:29-30 from your Bible so we can be happy for your spiritual heavenly treasures. Other Christians know the meaning of those verses among many others - it doesn't make them 'pagans'.

abose:
and please "teacher", don't teach me nonsense even if there maybe some sense in it.

Hahaha! Dear abose, I hope everything is alright? What is the correlation between the 'nonsense' and your admitting there is "some sense" in it?

abose:
PG1: I believe the question from Kunle was if any evidence existed to say that Abraham gave tithes more than once or if Jacob actually redeemed his pledge or tithed again.

I don't know if Kunle asked that question; but even so, I've responded accordingly and awaiting comments that show they were not "tithes" even though the Bible called them so.

abose:
I am sticking to my old high school motto: recta decep et factere

God bless as you stick to it.

Enigma:
@pilgrim.1

Just for the records only: I'm afraid I still have no time to waste answering your questions; or even to deal with slights/insults ('letting go of letter and seeing the 'spirit' nonsense) from you.

I will post what I want to post exactly I how I want to post it.

Edited

And is there a law/covenant that others can't post exactly how and what they want to post - even in this thread? Lol, there's no need to be perturbed - you post, we do the same.

Bros Image123,

Thank you for the reply above. You added to my understanding and pointed me to a few other highlights I would keep in mind. Do have such a blessed day.

kantoma:
I really wonder why you are so disturbed by this "TITHE" thing? How do you make it a "matter" when someone who wants to demonstrate his love for another decides to put himself under an obligation to constantly give to the fellow he loves? We give tithe to show that we love God. We give tithe to acknowledge that all we have gotten actually come from God. We give tithe to support the furtherance of the work of our God on earth. And men, if you are having problem giving God just a tenth of what you have, I wonder how many times you would have questioned His claim that He owns the whole of you?

You have me in stitches!! Good word.

Enigma:
Question: where then is the source of teaching people to "tithe" today?

Is it the "tithing" mentioned in Malachi, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Nehemiah? Has that not been done away with and disannulled with the law?

When Paul spoke about those who minister about the Temple and the Altar in 1 Corinthians 9:13, from which of those books did he draw his inference, before going on to say "EVEN SO has the Lord ordained" in verse 14? Questions such as you ask only show how difficult it is to let go of the "letter"  and see the spirit (principle) of the Law.

Enigma:
Is it the "tithing" done by Abraham?

If it is the "tithing" done by Abraham: how many times did Abraham give "tithes"?

How many times did he have to give tithes before you can qualify it as "tithes"? If the Bible calls it tithes, what then is the substance in arguing about how many times he did so before you can recognize it is simply called that same thing - tithes?

Enigma:
From which "possessions" or "increase" did Abraham give the "tithes"?

From what belonged to him. Ask and I shall repeat the very same thing to show you what you're missing.

Enigma:
Did Abraham ever pay "tithes" as an obligation?

Nope - and that is precisely what we have often pointed out: Abraham's tithes were not by obligation or by any Law/commandment. Must there be an "obligation" in order to qualify his tithes as "tithes"? If so, where did you read that?

Enigma:
To whom and when else did Abraham give/pay "tithes"?

He gave them to Melchizedek - and the Bible called it "tithe". Trying to look for "extras" to justify why you question his tithes as such is not helping, I'm afraid. That same Hebrews recognizes that the one simple act of Abraham's tithing even affecting Levi who was not yet born - else, to what purpose then was the epistle mentioning that Levi paid tithes in Abraham (vv. 9-10)? Perhaps, by the same logic as in yours, if you don't see anyone else that Abraham gave tithes to, then verse 9-10 would be wrong to infer that Levi also gave tithes to Melchizedek, yes? hmm.

Enigma:
Did Abraham ever give/pay "tithes" more than once?

Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek - and the Bible calls it "tithes" both in the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:6). Do you have ANOTHER word in those verses to disqualify what he gave as "tithes"?

Enigma:
Is it the "tithes" promised by Jacob? When and how did Jacob pay the "tithes"?  How many times did Jacob ever pay any or any other "tithes"?

Was Jacob also under the Law of Hebrews 7, or under the Law of Numbers, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy? It seems if tithes are not bent backwards to the Law, then it cannot be called "tithes", no?

KunleOshob:
And is tithes not an integral part of the levithical laws

The verse you queried was Hebrews 7:18 - and we've seen that it points particularly to what established the Levitical priesthood. This is also clear when you read verse 28, and I asked earlier if it was "tithes"  that made men into highpriests? Your narrowing verse 18 to just tithes is why you can't see what verse 19 states.

KunleOshob:
I don't know why you have to be dis-honest about the above highlighted the bible was quite specific when it said commandment to tithe under the law in verse 5, that is clear evidence that tithes was one of if not the main issue of the law being addressed

Since you recognize that tithes was NOT the main issue, why are you trying to force it to become the main issue in that chapter, Kunle?

KunleOshob:
also the term "commandemnt" in reference to tithe was used again in verse 18 when tithes was being describe as weak and useless.

It was not tithes that were being described as weak and useless - that is why you find it difficult to point out exactly what that weakness was. Clue: you will not find any verse in the Bible teaching that tithes are "weak" - because tithes had nothing to do with "perfecting" any believer (see verse 19).

KunleOshob:
Anyway you want to argue it you can not deny the fact that tithes is a part of the levithical laws and it was highlighted in the same passage condenming the laws, to me that is quite instructive.

Lol, the chapter does not make "a part" into the "whole" - it may help to not make "a commandment" the whole Law!

@Image123,

Image123:
@all kunle's sympathizers
Please try to read up earlier posts before typing, it'll save nairaland some harddisk space. Most of your queries and comments have already being well addressed.

I wonder.

Image123:
@kunleOshob and pilgrim.1
You guys are one funny pair. Don't you know that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers most? Take heed that ye be not consumed one of another, biko and God give you wisdom.

On my part, I'll just humble myself and apologise. It wasn't my intention to make anyone suffer from such exchanges, and I'm not going to offer any excuses or 'but's. And thank you for your godly caution and brotherly love - God bless you abundantly.

Image123:
Kunle, I'll have expected by now that you'll not be talking about Hebrews7 to dissuade people from tithing. Its been explained before and pilgrim.1 has done a good job about it again.
Truly, when you're too repetitive, you become 'unhealthily repetitive'. People are already sick.

I just wonder how many times we have to make this very point to him, before this sucbject moves forward. It should be obvious that 'unhealthy repetitions', no matter how many times they are recycled, are not making interesting contributions to the subject. Their choice, though.

Image123:
Back to Hebrews, I'll just like to add that the law is a word with different meanings in scripture. Take 3 instances out of many more, the law could refer to the 5books of Moses, it could also refer to one of the two divisions of the old testament i.e the law and the prophets. Thirdly, it could refer to the whole old testament as law . The context usually shows the law being referred to.

Well said.

Image123:
In what context, to what purpose, and to what theme was the book of Hebrews written? One needs to look at the big picture. How would a Jew react if he/she told about the law of tithes. It'll be strange 'cause there's nothing like that in the Bible.

Abeg help me tell them.

Image123:
What could the epistle to the Hebrews be refering to as law . That word law appears about 14times in the book of Hebrews. In the context of the writer, what did he refer to as law in his epistle? It was largely the ceremonial laws, i.e those Levitical laws.

Hmm, every sound Bible student makes precisely the same case - including even anti-tithers who do a bit of theology. I've already posted a few, and some others to add below to show what Hebrews 7:18 was particularly referring to:

[list]

A. W. Pink, Commentary on Hebrews 7:17-19 >>
|
"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before".
The reference here is to the entire system of the Mosaic institutions.
That system is here spoken of as "the commandment going before".
It was of Divine appointment and authority, yet was it only designed
"until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). The "going before" signifies
the introduction of the new Priest in fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 110.
The commandment going before was that which regulated the worship of
God and obedience to Him prior to the Christian dispensation; but this had
now been cancelled and a new law of worship given.

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament,
Hebrews 7 >>
|
"Verse 18
For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of
its weakness and unprofitableness.

This turns attention to the very nature of the Levitical system
of which that priesthood was the support and center. It was not of
caprice that God annulled the old covenant, for it deserved to be
annulled because of its weakness and unprofitableness. God had
never considered the Levitical system to be complete, final or efficacious
in itself; but "it was added because of transgression, until the seed
should come to whom the promise hath been made" Gal. 3:19).
The law expired, therefore, by limitation, when Jesus was revealed as
that "seed" so long anticipated. The weakness and unprofitableness of
that foregoing commandment refers to the whole system of Moses;
and Macknight explained the weakness of it thus, . . . ."

John MacArthur (himself an anti-tither),
'Jesus the Superior Priest, Hebrews 7:11-19' >>
|
"For there is verily an annulling of the commandment going before
for the weakness and unprofitableness of it."  God set aside the
old standard.  Now watch.  Now put a parenthesis at the beginning
of verse 19.  "(For the law made nothing perfect), but the bringing
in of a better hope by which we draw near unto God."  Or you'd use
and.  Lemme read it this way.  "For there is verily an annulling of
the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness
of it.  (For the law made nothing perfect), and the bringing in of a better
hope, cross out did, by which we draw near unto God."  You see?
God says, "I am setting aside the old one, and I'm bringing in a new one;
and in the new covenant, you have what?  Access to God.

Now, the word disannulling, afaytises, has to do with the doing away
of something that is established.  It is used, for example of annulling
a treaty, of annulling a promise, a law, a regulation, of erasing a man's
name from something.  It has to do with removing what is established.
The whole paraphernalia of the sacrificial system, the whole ceremonial
system is wiped out.  It is annulled.  It is done away with.  God wipes it
out; and He wiped it out for good in 70 AD when He destroyed the temple.
The old system could reveal sin.  It could cover sin.  It could give a relative
measure of drawing near to God, but not full perfection.  It brought nothing
to conclusion.  The priesthood of Jesus Christ made all that Israel looked
forward to a reality.  Access to God.

[/list]


These are by no means an exhaustive list of those who make a sound case for Hebrews 7:18; but the point is well carried as in your statement that the context was "largely the ceremonial laws, i.e those Levitical laws".  Those who narrow it down to just a "law/commandment of tithe" would have to explain how that "law" was what made men into highpriests in verse 28. Of course, John MacArthur is not the only anti-tither who sees the commandment in verse 18 as referring to the "old covenant", others make just about the same inference.

Perhaps it should help others think carefully before drawing untenable conclusions which they may not be able to defend.

Thank you again, and God increase your wisdom.

@abose,

abose:
He that hath an ear, let him hear what, :
It is funny how folks can know you based on a particular position you take, I maybe an Amicus curiae in this case but it doesn't matter to the "tithe" 10% hounds.

People hold different views on the subject of giving - whether it be tithe, freewill offering, seed-sowing, donations, etc. You don't have to single out tithe as the one word that riles you up so bad that you must often and repetitively use against others, especially when you haven't demonstrated a balanced view of the texts you appeal to. It is for this reason that we call for reason, not derision; and when anti-tithers are not done until they have displayed such unfortunate attitude, what benefit then do they derive from such?

abose:
I still fellowship with other folks in a "church" but I am just not into the foolishness of taking everything the "man of God" says without cross referencing and certainly don't partake in the absurd 10% malpractice.

Glad to know you fellowship, regardless how you assume the word "church". And who says that others who have an informed choice to tithe have been into the foolishness you prescribed? You just imagine your position is far better than others because you assume they do not "cross reference" whatever teaching they listen to? Please.

abose:
However I do my giving is between me and my creator which is exactly what our prince of peace Jesus taught us not to give like the pharisees and reaping the reward right here on earth as opposed to Heaven.

There are many tithers who know that their giving is between themselves and God, without having to assume a pharisaic attitude towards anyone. It turns out that folks who often see others as Pharisees while praising themselves as obeying Jesus are the very ones who know very little of what He has taught. Giving brings benefits and rewards both here on earth, as well in heaven. It may suit you perfectly to reject the one while thinking of the other - but that is your personal choice (and you're entitled to it); yet, that does not mean you've checked your Bible well enough. Just for starters, check out what Jesus Himself taught about this - Luke 6:38 and Mark 10:29-30.

abose:
There is little doubt that these are the end times and we must be on the lookout for Wolves in Sheep's clothing, you have to have a knowledge of the other side to properly defend against their tactics and antics, we must be more like Jesus Christ if we hope to make Heaven, to each his own.

The fact that there are fraudsters all over should not make you reactive; one should learn to reason in a balanced manner inspite of the abuses. Failing to do so is the reason why many anti-tithers who think they know, are often making statements they cannot defend from Scripture. Abuse is no sufficient reason to reject what God's Word teaches - you don't let the abuser deprive you of godly understanding to often be reactive.

abose:
It is clear that the "tithers" won't give up! I've got two more cents to add here:

Tithe is out, giving is in
Jesus paid our DEBT on the CROSS and those collecting "tithes" in the his name are "oles"
All real Christians are in his "Royal Priesthood" and don't need any "man of god"
The CHURCH is the believer and not some dome shaped edifice that glorifies you know who but not our maker
The real Christian is the Church and Temple
The new Covenant doesn't require you to actually go to a "church" to serve him when he dwells in you
A real Christian ought to run anytime he/she hears "man of God", "God told me" "you will prosper", "you will not die", etc.
The kingdom of Heaven is not a "pay to play" entity as some of these gospel entertainers/pimps will have you believe
A real Christian need to run from those guilt peddlers

And where in Scripture do you make all these out from?

You see, it's one thing to be reactive and quite another thing to be reasonable. You may choose never to "go to church", and that has automatically made you better than those who do so, yes?

Please, it pays to think. . . with the heart. Tithes were not a DEBT for your sins. Nobody ever paid tithes anywhere as regarding their sins. That repetitious mantra is becoming quite out of date.

chukwudi44:
Contary to your assertion the levitical tithe was compulsory and any defaultment would result in the curses outlined in the laws of moses.That was what Prophet malachi was talking about.

Lol, did you ask me about the Levitical tithe or about tithing as a Christian? Let me remind you:

A.  "Is it compulsory for every christian to donate 10% of their earnings
          to the church(pastor)?"

    B. ". . but simply asking is there any comandment in christianity that recommends
          compulsory tithing(strictly 10%)?"

Those were your questions - were you on about Levitical tithes or what was "compulsory" for EVERY CHRISTIAN? So, what is "contrary to your assertion" if you seem to be confusing your case all the more?

I might've anticipated precisely where you were going; thus my answer to show you were confusing what was for the Christian by having your thoughts on Levitical tithes.

However, as regards the other part of my answer that "Neither the OT nor the NT makes tithing a matter of what is "compulsory" or "strictly" 10%," that is precisely the case. Several times I've shown that a "strict" 10% was not what was recommended; and I also referenced several anti-tithers who argued other percentages instead of 10%. I went on to show how that was so, and I could expatiate with more references for that, if you care. But as long as you see a "strict 10%" for your convictions, that's okay - just stick to that point until later when you would have to make a rethink.

chukwudi44:
The truth remains that even when it is not compulsory for people to donate 10% of their ,most pastors continue with this heretic practise to exploit their members,,that is what the likes of kunle are fighting .

Please be consistent: what exactly is your argument - that a "strict 10%" is compulsory, or that "even when it is not compulsory"?!? You're hardly making a consistent arguement here. What Kunle is fighting is not what he finds in my post - and whatever concerns he's offered in query on the subject, I've addressed them. It's a wonder that while you see "heretic practise" in others, it has never occured to such folks that they have been equally playing the heresy games themselves.

chukwudi44:
Anyone may decide to freely donate to the church,that would be in line with christian teaching,but when someone donates the 10% because of malachi3:10 or their pastors threats that person cannot be said to be practising true christianity.

By trying to define what people should believe about Malachi 3:10, you haven't demonstrated true Christianity either.

chukwudi44:
He/she is in bondage and needs to be delivered from the hands of criminals who call themselves men of God.

There are many people who have proven the power of Malachi 3:10 for themselves - is that bondage? Your reaction is not helping your point here, I'm afraid.

chukwudi44:
The act of giving is not wrong but rather the motive behind it.Just like a sranded girl walks up to me beggiong for money,if Igive it to her because Iwant to sleep with her ,I cannot be said to be charitable.

I guess you might not have read my comments previously in my reply to yours - how does yours differ from what I said?? --

[list]That said, Christian giving (whether tithes, freewill offerings, donations, contributions, seed-sowing, etc.) is a matter of the same principle as in the OT: the attitude and condition of the heart, which is far more important than any amount or percentage that anyone offers.[/list]

chukwudi44:
In essense,the act of giving 10% may not be wrong but the motive behind it is what really matters

Okay. And your point in reply all along has been. . .? I really don't see what contrary matter you actually brought to the table. But enjoy.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
As i see you enjoy ranting a lot i would continue to induldge your excesses and exihibition of poor upbringing exemplified by your uncouth vocabularies in expressing your delusions. It is clear that tithes is a part of the law and it is very instructive that that the commandment to tithe under the law was the specific commandment mentioned before the law was anulled in verse 12 &18. The best you have been able to to prove from the opinions of the commentaries you posted here is that it was the law being refered to and not only tithes whilst mischieviously and conviniently ignoring the FACT that tithes was an intergral part of the law. [and please don't refer to Abraham's tithes as there is no instruction to emulate this one off act of abraham to jews talkless of christians].

Why are you anti-tithers so scared of Abraham's tithes? Was the patriacrh's tithes not discussed in Hebrews 7 as well? Oh, I see - selective reading is what you champion. . . but you can stop begging that it shouldn't be mentioned.

KunleOshob:
And it was this same pilgrim.1 that argued vehemently that the law was not done away with only to recant later and accept it was done away with and that only the principles of the law were relevant to christians.

Another one of your excellent lies. Please show me where I recanted on what you're alleging.

KunleOshob:
No matter how you want to look at it and twist the srciptures hebrews 7 was talking about not only the law but the commandment to tithe which was clearly stated there

Okay, I'm waiting to see how you prove that is the case by following simple exegetical interpretations of the Bible. I know that you'll come back whinging again when your eisegesis would fail you. . . but who knows, you just might save face by recycling another otiose drama.

KunleOshob:
and just becos it doesn't suit your argument you are going to find solace in the writings of commentators who did not highlight this FACT in their submissions even though their writings do not argue against the facts which i have stated on what hebrews 7:12&18 was addressing.

Unless something is seriously acting as a virus to blind you to simple issues, you can't deny the fact that those whom I've quoted have not supported your dubious assertions about Hebrews 7:18. A. W. Pink is well known in his commentaries; others will be posted (including those from anti-tithers themselves) to show you that you're floating on the sea to nowhere. You're simply lost on your own drama and still have no clues. When you're done and blue in the face, come back and let's see how you magically turn Hebrews 7:18 on only tithes, when that is not exegetically substantiated.

Cherio.

KunleOshob:
@pilgim.1
Just so you assume i have ran off i have to inform you that i am signing off my system now as i have to go out i would be back tomorrow to address whatever hallucinations you may have posted all in your efforts to confuse the very elects.

You're a piece of work. Run all you like and go consult your voodoo acts for more dense performance. . would be quite entertaining, yea?

KunleOshob:
If you call those answers then your delusion is beyond comprehension and certainly the money paid for your schooling is a colossal waste. I would suggest you ask your parents to demand a refund from what ever instituitions you attended. You must realize that you are on an intellectual forum and NOT just any rubbish you constrive would be accepted as an answer. If you are dealing with people who are at your very low intelectual parity you might be able to get away with such rubbish but not on nairaland and definitely not with me.

Lol, I feel very sorry for your sort. Seriously. It's simply because you are too poor to rise to the level of an educated chap, that is why you decry the reasoning of others whose scholarship you cannot even begin to dream of attaining. No worries, for rascals do that same thing repeatedly, and you've again proven it beyond any shred of doubt.

Anyhow, just to show how pitiful a lonely dreamer you are with your utility grade scholarship, here's what I promised earlier:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3862435#msg3862435 date=1242225216]So, just stay tuned and let me help you with some quotes on Hebrews 7:18, yeah?[/quote]I doubt you would remain with any interest; but whenever you feel like taking a peep, it will be here for your consideration. Now, this was your own interpretaion of Hebrews 7:18 -

KunleOshob:
Evidently what is being described as weak and unprofitable is the commandment to tithe under the law and NOT the law in itself as pilgim.1 would like us to believe. My dear i think you should stop confusing issues and using evasive tactics . . .

To assure you, the pointers I gave earlier as to Hebrews 7:18 were not "tactics"; and no informed student of the Bible who makes the same point would regard them as "tactics" either. Here are a few:

[list][li]For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before". The reference here is to [size=14pt]the entire system of the Mosaic institutions[/size]. That system is here spoken of as "the commandment going before". It was of Divine appointment and authority, yet was it only designed "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). The "going before" signifies the introduction of the new Priest in fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 110. The commandment going before was that which regulated the worship of God and obedience to Him prior to the Christian dispensation; but this had now been cancelled and a new law of worship given.
~~ A. W. Pink, Commentary on Hebrews 7:17-19[/i][/li]
.
.
[li]Hebrews 7:11-22 presents the issue that the older system under the Levitical priesthood has been replaced by the new priesthood that comes from a different order (vs. 11). Verse twelve with vivid clarity tells the saints that the priesthood has changed but also that the law has changed as well. Verse eighteen specifically states that “there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.” [size=14pt]The former commandment is a reference to the Mosaic Law[/size].[54] The reference to weakness refers to the inability of the Law of Moses to empower the saint to fulfill the requirement. The Jewish people readily acknowledged the burden the Mosaic Law placed upon believers (see Acts 15:9-10). Then in verse nineteen the writer mentions that a “better hope” has been brought in place of the Law of Moses that has been set aside. The reference to the weakness of the Law reminds the readers that the Old Covenant could not fully atone for sin. Those under the older covenant could not experience the full understanding and accomplishment of redemption.[55]
~~ Essential Christianity, on Hebrews 7:11-22 [/li][/list]

More will be posted, including those from anti-tithers with Ph.Ds (essentially, they make the same point). When you are blue in the face, you can then show how very dense you can be by referring to such men as below you, for the simple reason again that you're a noise-making tout with absolutely no clue what you've been arguing.

Fingers cross, you'll prove the case again . . seeing you excel at making a nuisance of yourself publicly.