₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
I can assure you that those "pastors" in the videos you posted are tithe preachers and they are already reaping off their congrgation this way. The methods shown in that video are just extort more from the congregation. The problem is that the pentecostal movement as so much instituitionalize tithes that people no longer question it they believe it to be the truth they now only ask if tithes should be after tax or before tax. these pastors already take tithes collection as granted they are just trying to milk their gullible congregation further. But thank God today we are in the information era and the truth about tithes is slowly being revealed to all. personally i can testify that God as been using me to reveal the biblical truth about tithes to christians and a lot of christians have had the scales taken off their eyes through my effort and are no longer wasting their money on dubious preachers who claim they are serving God.

Kunle,

You simply have no clue and I wonder if you're arguing out issues from an informed position or you just like to say anything you like. The clips were not referring to tithes - view them again and again. I know Leroy Thompson speaks about tithes, as do many of his contacts (Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, etc). However, in those clips it was not tithes they are all about (unless you are largely unware of the "money-cometh-to-me-now" movement). In such abuses, these folks speak more about "miracle seed", "faith seed", 'money-money', 'anointed money', 'faith offering' and other things like 'sow-a-seed'. If you never heard these guys talk about tithes, would those abuses automatically become non-existent?

And, oh, I forgot to mention indeed that Kenneth Copeland and Leroy Thompson also use "freewill offerings" to the same effect.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
The place you falsely claimed i was not quoting the scripture properly because of the insertion "Jesus and his apostles never preached tithe" i put is you trying to cast me in bad light cause i clearly bracketed the insertion to make it known it was an insertion. That aside what i inserted is a fact and it was intended to help the readers understand the verse better under the context within which i was using it.

Please stop whinging. You have been quoting Jeremiah 8 to cast others in bad light and when I pointed out that you were doing the very same thing that you accuse others of, you didn't make any attempt to play fair.

KunleOshob:
And when you quote the above verse always remember to include verse 15 so you don't quote the verse out of context, pastors should also be encourage to copy paul's example as enuciated in verse 15


1 Corinthians 9:13-15:

13 Don’t you realize that those who work in the temple get their meals from the offerings brought to the temple? And those who serve at the altar get a share of the sacrificial offerings. 14 In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Good News should be supported by those who benefit from it. 15 Yet I have never used any of these rights. And I am not writing this to suggest that I want to start now. In fact, I would rather die than lose my right to boast about preaching without charge

I asked questions on 1 Corinthians 9:13-14; the fact was on those two verses, not on verse 15. The Lord did not ordain verse 15 for paul or anyone else; rather it was what were spoken about in verses 13-14 that the Lord ordained.

KunleOshob:
As per your little assignment maybe you have to figure it out yourself, my bible used the word permanent property so maybe the levites had access to property but they didn'y have permanent possesion of it.

I can't believe you came back with exactly the answer I anticipated you would - "you have to figure it out yourself" - that is what people often say when they make statements that are not carefully examined for balance. You did not use any qualifiers when you initially said:

                   'God ordained tithing for the levites as compensation for
                    their not being allowed to own property as clearly stated
                    in numbers 18:23-24.'

Are we to come back now and re-edit your statement for you to read that God meant "permanent property"? The point is not so much whether the property was permanent or temporary - your point was rather that they were not 'allowed to own property', abi?
                   

KunleOshob:
then again you could suggest that the bible is contradicting it self but there are several passages in the bible that says the levites were entitled to tithes cause they were not allowed to own property

Lol, you're really evading your own argument. Have I ever argued any "contradiction" between both passages? I asked you pointedly a question based on your assertion; and I observed a simple thing:

               'But hang on a minute: is that all there is about the Levites?'

I'm quite aware of the coherence; but I wanted you to help yourself before drawing any unbalanced conclusions because anti-tithers often argue that Levites were never allowed to own property and that is the only thing they see on the issue. For that reason, I asked: is that all there is about the Levites?

KunleOshob:
i would give you two more passages below that emphasize that;

Deuteronomy 12:12:
12 “You must celebrate there in the presence of the Lord your God with your sons and daughters and all your servants. And remember to include the Levites who live in your towns, for they will receive no allotment of land among you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 14:27:
27 And do not neglect the Levites in your town, for they will receive no allotment of land among you.

Are you done? if you want more than those two, I shall supply them:

[list]Deuteronomy 10:9 -
      Wherefore Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren;
       the LORD is his inheritance, according as the LORD thy God
       promised him.[/list]

[list]Deuteronomy 18:1 -
      The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi,
      shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel:
      they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire,
      and his inheritance.[/list]

See also Joshua 13:33 and several other references.


After all this, you still did not have anything to say about the simple assignment? No, I don't see a contradition between those verses, and it would be obvious as soon as you look carefully before making flat statements. May I look forward to your kind attempts to draw a coherence between them, or you'd just like to leave it at the fact you didn't answer the question? I'm sure you could do better than the terse "figure it out yourself", yes?

Cheers.

KunleOshob:
My dear either you don't understand me or you are deliberately trying to be dishonest, we have had several debates on tithes since last year and i believe i have expressed my self clearly enough on this issue of tithes. i have consistently told you that i don't have anything against tithing per se that it is the way it is being preached and imposed on unsuspecting christians to de-fraud them that i loath.

You have made this allegation so many times it has become redundant and out of date. The reason why I asked you to be clear was because you were being inconsistent, making assertions that were unfounded only to recently come back and hoot for some "conformity" somewhere. If you don't have anything against tithes, why has it been difficult for you all this while to encourage it?

KunleOshob:
the definition of tithes today[ten percetn of income] is not biblical hence it is a false doctrine.

That was why you praise the Jews today who still tithe after asserting they do not, yes? Let's for your sake even say that the Jews are tithing and therefore practising a "false doctrine", one wonders how you would still come to praise the same thing in them.

KunleOshob:
Biblical tithes is ten percent of the produce of the land of Israel, which is not what is being preached today. If a pastor wants to preach tithes he should explain to his congregation that they are not obligde to practise it, but most of them preach from malachi 3[distort the meaning of biblical tithes] which is not relevant to christianity becos it is best suited to intimidate and deceive christians into tithing.

You're basing the totality of your arguments on the narrow locality of your experience. I've hinted so many times that there are many Churches and pastors who teach tithe without making it a matter of coercion.

KunleOshob:
No matter how you want to argue it pilgrim.1 it is very evident that tithing the way it is preached and practised today in churches as NO sound biblical basis it is just a distortion of biblical practise becos of the greed of a few.

Same as above - just because the only thing you see around you is "greed" does not mean that is what all tithers have been practising.

KunleOshob:
The pulpit owes the congregation the truth and nothing else, they are not allowed to add their own to scripture or twist it. I agree with you that there are other methods being used by certain pastors to extort money from their congregation but you would agree with me that tithing is the most instituitionalized and popular method of extortion in the church today hence my speaking against it

I disagree with you that the most institutionalised method for filthy lucre is tithes - that was why I posted you samples of clips earlier to see the most popular examples in many places. We owe people truth, yes: but that does not include the example of the false claim you borrowed from whereever about Jews not tithing today. As Christians, we should not be making false claims just because we're not inclined to something.

topeokunol:
sorry what i was trying to say is that,you talk assive you are one of the tithes collecting pastors

@topeokunol,
I got you the first time, nevermind the typos - we all make them, and there are so many in my posts. I understand you, but I'm not what you supposed.

Thanks for the attempts.

Pastor AIO:
There are two points that leap out at me here. The first is that I don't think Paul was referring to tithes at all.

What was he referring to - what/where was he drawing his inferences from? Was he referring to any OT references; and if yes, what could they be?

Pastor AIO:
And secondly, christians believe themselves to be members of the priesthood. Subsequently as the priests shared in the eating of the sacrifices so also all christians share their sacrificial meal.

Was Paul talking about sacrificial meal in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14?

Pastor AIO:
A third point has just occurred to me. Many christians consider evangelism to be a great commission extended to all christians. This blurs the lines between those who preach the gospel and those who benefit from it.

well, is 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 in context blurring any lines?

Pastor AIO:
Is s/he mistaken about the way you talk or about the fact of whether you are a tithe collecting (im)poaster.

Was the question meant to be two different things? In that case, s/he is mistaken.

Enigma:
My dear pilgrim.1

I see you've engaged my posts on two occasions asking me questions: I'm afraid I have no intention whatsoever of wasting my time on any of such questions.

I will post what I want to post when I want to post and how I want to post.

All the best.

Lol, I wasn't expecting you'd be inclined - but just so I don't draw the wrong conclusions was why I once again invited you to consider them. Cheerio.

Pastor AIO:
My tongue was in my cheek when I said 'small details'. I don't think it is a small detail at all. And I don't think it is only an act of charity either. It has spiritual repercussions. Sharing a meal dedicated to a diety is a practice that is recognised in almost every religious tradition in the world. It is rooted in the belief that nourishment is a sacred act.

Okay, I hear.

Enigma:
This is interesting; it is also one of the reasons that long winded and tortuous attempts to justify tithing do not merit any real effort to debunk them; in fact most can be easily dismissed contemptuously.

As we keep referring to Deuteronomy 14: yes, the tithe, in the form of produce and livestock, was meant to be consumed by the tither himself --- sharing with widows, orphans etc.

The only reference concerning money was that if it was too difficult to carry the tithe (produce and livestock) to the designated place, the tither could convert it to money. Now here (repeated again!) is another conundrum for those who teach tithes today: if the tither converts the tithe to money, he was supposed to spend the money on whatsoever his heart desires, that is, whatsoever his heart desires ---- not necessarily anything spiritual but things for jolly jolly jollification (or "frivolity" including strong drink and then share those things with widows, orphans etc etc. What is the equivalent of that in today's tithing teaching and practise?

Could someone who contemptuously easily dismisses the subject please share their thoughts on what Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. If some prefer, here are those verses as rendered by the NLT -


[list]"13 Don’t you realize that those who work in the temple get their meals from the offerings brought to the temple? And those who serve at the altar get a share of the sacrificial offerings. 14 In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Good News should be supported by those who benefit from it."[/list]

What did Paul mean by quoting the OT and saying "in the same way" in order to encourage Christian giving?

topeokunol:
PILGRIMS,you talk assive you are one of the tithes collecting poastors.

You're mistaken.

Pastor AIO:
My own inside all of this is: Tithe is supposed to be food, not money and further more the awuf is supposed to be shared in the presence of the Lord. This small detail that is being overlooked is more pertinent than it is being given credit for, I think.

What do forum members think of the significance of the shared meal in religious worship? I'm not just talking about tithe now, but also about the Lord's supper which is one of the central rites of christianity but is funnily absent in most if not all of the pentecostal churches.

How can christians, who claim to be practicing christianity come together to fellowship without awuf? How? This is terrible corruption of christianity.

@Pastor AIO,

I don't know if the life of a believer is determined by "small details", though I don't think they should be discarded out of hand. The point is that it is not in the small details of legalism that the NT discusses or encourages giving, even though the apostles quoted copiously from the OT Law to teach giving for Christians.

On the other hand, I don't know how many Christians would draw a parallel in "awuf" and the Lord's Supper, if we can understand that they're not the same things. However, although it seems more probable that early Christians enjoyed such fellowships of 'feast of love' (or 'agape feast' as it's commonly called - Jude 12), yet some may be misled to think it is the same thing as the Lord's Supper. As for the awuf type of fellowship nosh, I know several churches which have such expressions often in areas I've visited.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
When i say obsolete rite i mean obsolete rite. it still remains a fact even from all your posts about jewish tithing that Jews don't practise tithing the way it was described in the bible [that is what i mean by rites]deut 14,deut26, levitcus27, malachi3. Clearly it is not practical today.

You're not being consistent. You seem to ever flag and fluctuate on this subject, so that after you have made assertions that cannot stand up to scrutiny, you come back to say what has been posted is in your "conformity".

The bottom line is that the oft-recycled claim being made by many "Christians" about "Jews do not tithe at all today" is false - no matter how that claim is edited and re-edited, it is false and has no substance to bear in reality. That was the essence of my posting all those sources - including the Wikipedia source that succinctly states: "Orthodox Judaism still regards tithe obligations as IN EFFECT on produce grown in the Land of Israel", as well other sources that show that the Jews still practise it. The only difference is in the manner (the 'how') in which they do so today; that does not say they do not practise it any longer.

KunleOshob:
But what i want to draw from it is that at least their rabbis are more honest that our pastors by preaching they should give it to charity instead of to them if the principle of tithes must be practised.

Okay, let me take it that you realise your previous grave oversight in which you assumed two fallacies - that (a) the Jews no longer tithe today; and (b) that "tithes" was fraudulent. I've asked again and again if it was actually "tithes" in themselves that are the problem, or the manner in which it is abused; and between times you haven't been fair in the way you discussed the subject.

People can use all sorts of means to defraud others - such means including "freewill offerings", perhaps you may never have realized this fact. That being the case, WHY is it that anti-tithers never also attack "freewill offerings" and call it the same thing (fraud)? Someone once said that if we have to be so technical to attack the word "tithes", we should also realize that the term "freewill offerings" does not appear a single time in the NT, but all references to the term are in the OT Law! It seems that since "freewill offerings" are anti-tithers favourite word, they actually have never seen that fraudsters use that same thing to defraud people in the Body of Christ. Should I therefore join the anti-tithing group and start attacking 'freewill offerings' because the same 'prosperity preachers' are no longer using "tithes" for their adventures?

Here's an example of such an abuse (ignore the comments on the screen; and please note: this is not a personal derision of anyone who appears on the clip):

      [flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aOFSgt5w-c&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

      [flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fknk2MO0MyU&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]


The point is that when you check out the massive financial problem in such settings, these preachers may not even mention 'tithes'; but while anti-tithers are busy quarrelling over 'tithes' and 'tithing', the abuses continue in such circles through other means, including 'freewill offerings', 'anointed money', 'money cometh', etc. Even if the word 'tithe' could one day no longer be used in Christian vocabulary, will that mean that these abuses will automatically become non-existent? Those who are raking $16,000 for a dog from "frewill offerings" will look for other means to keep their trade - just as they have employed ingenious terms that have nothing to do with tithes.

Let's not keep making the mistake of using tithes as the basis of all kinds of misplaced thinking - deal rather with the problem itself rather than mispunching and allowing the real problem to go unnoticed.

KunleOshob:
Kudos to the rabbis. Nigeria and indeed the whole world would have been a much better place if christians are keeping the mandate christ gave us and that is to help and assist those in need. This what i expect our preachers to be preaching that people should use their tithes to do that is if they must preach tithes at all.

Can I ask a simple question (even though I've asked it before): if "tithes/tithing" is a false doctrine, then should people "use their tithes" (ie., use their 'false doctrine') to promote charity? This is why I've been appealing for consistency - one who condemns tithes cannot come back at the same time encouraging the same tithes. Yet, it's great to see you acknowledge that tithes could be used for assiting the needy, among several other uses.

Meanwhile, KunleOshob, how come you seem to have skipped the small assigment I proposed for your consideration? You asked a question, but are not interested in following it up? Here again:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3827090#msg3827090 date=1241558175]

KunleOshob:
Remember as i stated in the other thread God ordained tithing for the levites as compensation for their not being allowed to own property as clearly stated in numbers 18:23-24.

Often times, people see only one side of a subject while completely forgetting the complimentary side. Such is the case about the Levites not being 'allowed to own property' (from a cursory reading of Numbers 18:23-24) because of the service which they occupy on Israel's behalf.

But hang on a minute: is that all there is about the Levites? I'm not sure that is the case. Let me leave you an assignment for now and then we'll come back to this very point after your answer. Please read up Leviticus 25:32-33 and see if indeed the Levites were "not being allowed to own property" -

[list]"Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of
the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time.
And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold,
and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubile:
for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among
the children of Israel."[/list]

As as I said, I won't comment just as yet; but after reading those verses, please let us know your thoughts on them in relation to Numbers 18:23-24.[/quote]Would you like to compare both references and let's know your thoughts? Thank you.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Kindly show me at least one thing i have written that is not clearly backed by scripture.

There are obviously so many of them - I asked you questions in the relevant threads and you forever ducked them. However, even in this thread, I've shown an example here.

KunleOshob:
The passage you quoted above is another passage being mis-used by the church to justify collection of weekly tithes and offerings from the congregation. the truth is that paul was trying to raise money for the christians in jerusalem who were being persecuted at that time. It was a special collection of some sort and NOT a mandate to christians to practise till eternity. the sad thing is that the impact of that passage is being mis-used and mis-construed. What that we should learn from that passage is that as christians we should learn to help one another when in need. As i have always said the main reason for collections and giving in the new testament was for charity and helping those in need, it is indeeed unfortunate that the pulpit as taken advantage of the ignorance of the congregation to exploit the srciptures for their own selfish/greedy benefit.

1 Corinthians 16:1-5:
The Collection for Jerusalem
1 Now regarding your question about the money being collected for God’s people in Jerusalem. You should follow the same procedure I gave to the churches in Galatia. 2 On the first day of each week, you should each put aside a portion of the money you have earned. Don’t wait until I get there and then try to collect it all at once.

After your complaints, did I use 1 Corinthians 16:2 as a mandate, KunleOshob? I already noted that it is not my interest what any church is doing so as to point accusing fingers at anyone - I already said so; and if you cannot discuss until the dark side of you comes to the fore, please let me know. You seem to always be ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly highlighted that my discussions on this subject have nothing to do with any form of "coercion" or mandate or obligation - so please refrain from this unnecessary entertainment of using this discussion to further your derogation of others.

However, is it not amazing that you folks would complain about 1 Corinthians 16 and yet will never raise an eyebrow on the parallel reference in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9?? I am often amused about how anti-tithers will quote the latter for "Christian giving" but will have problems with the former - whereas the objections about "Jerusalem" you gave to one is the very same thing you find in the other!

Compare both passages in the NLT version you quoted from -

[list][li]1 Corinthians 16:1-2:
.
The Collection for Jerusalem
1 Now regarding your question about the money being collected for God’s people in Jerusalem. You should follow the same procedure I gave to the churches in Galatia. 2 On the first day of each week, you should each put aside a portion of the money you have earned. Don’t wait until I get there and then try to collect it all at once. [/li]
.
.

[li]2 Corinthians 8:3-4 & 18-19:
.
3 For I can testify that they gave not only what they could afford, but far more. And they did it of their own free will. 4 They begged us again and again for the privilege of sharing in the gift for the believers in Jerusalem.
18 We are also sending another brother with Titus. All the churches praise him as a preacher of the Good News. 19 He was appointed by the churches to accompany us as we take the offering to Jerusalem—a service that glorifies the Lord and shows our eagerness to help.[/li]
.
.
.
[li]2 Corithians 9:1-2 & 12:
.
The Collection for Christians in Jerusalem
1 I really don’t need to write to you about this ministry of giving for the believers in Jerusalem. 2 For I know how eager you are to help, and I have been boasting to the churches in Macedonia that you in Greece were ready to send an offering a year ago. In fact, it was your enthusiasm that stirred up many of the Macedonian believers to begin giving.
12 So two good things will result from this ministry of giving—the needs of the believers in Jerusalem will be met, and they will joyfully express their thanks to God[/li][/list]

If you have problems with 1 Corithians 16, then you should never refer to 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 for "Christian" giving - since both passages are dealing with your objection on the word "Jerusalem".

KunleOshob:
It is very dis-honest to claim Jesus taught and encouraged tithes based on matthew 23:23. In that verse Jesus was addressing pharisees who where under the law at that time hence the pharisees were bound to tithe as Jesus stated, that apart he NEVER taught it to his followers and none of his disciples ever taught or encouraged it, infact it was anulled in hebrews7:11 and described as weak and useless in hebrew7:18, this i am sure you are very aware of. That apart the impact of that verse was not to endorse tithing but rather to show the hyprocrysy in the pharisees who practised the less revelant [tithes] part of the law whilst ignoring the more important principles inherent in it.

You sadly have no clue - for the Hebrews 7:11 and 18 that you worry about, I've already discussed what exactly was "weak" and why it was so - those verses did not teach that "tithes" are weak and useless, unless you can show how God ever gave tithes to justify anybody!

As for Matthew 23:23, your arguments are again very weak, because you suppose that just because Jesus was speaking to the Jews at that time, it is no longer relevant. Go over to Matthew 22:33-40 and you will find the same problems you worry about -

[list][li]Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees[/li]
[li]Jesus was quoting the Law as well[/li]
[li]He did not quote that Law to His disciples when He addressed the Jews[/li][/list]

WHY are you not making the same inference as you did for Matthew 23:23? The hypocrisy you make for others that you cannot see in your argument is a wonder in itself.

@Enigma,

Enigma:
Well summarised Abose; "tithing", especially as taught today, is simply false doctrine and irrelevant for Christians. You will find that most if not all attempts to justify the continuation of the practice today are circular or tortuous interpretations of the Bible; some being deliberately dishonest (those whose gods are their belly); some being intellectually dishonest (the dogmatists who do not look at the relevant biblical passages, biblical history etc objectively).

It's quite amusing that many people seem to be confusing themselves on this subject. Is it "tithing" itself that is "simply false doctrine", or the abuses about it that we see in many places? Even 'dogmatists' themselves who are anti-tithers have no clue on many of the things they assert - and in many instances we have seen how very dubious they could be. I just wonder that so many of these anti-tither 'dogmatists' will shy away from 1 Corinthians 9:13-16 - for the same reasons you have outlined: they 'do not look at the relevant biblical passages, biblical history etc objectively'.

Enigma:
I still find that modern tithing preachers fail to address Deuteronomy 14 either at all, properly or honestly as the passage clearly states that the tither (who converts it to money) should spend the money on whatsoever his own heart desires - including strong drink! How do modern tithe teachers reconcile that with what they teach?

I don't know how "modern tithe teachers" reconcile what you seek; but it's not true to say that they fail to address Deuteronomy 14 at all, properly or honestly. As you can see, KunleOshob asked a question on the relevant text above (from verse 22-29), and I offered an honest answer. There are others who also have given concise answers on that same subject, but no - the anti-tithers' emphasis is on "strong drink" and it seems that is all they care about; whereas that is not the emphasis of that chapter.

@abose,

Your comments reflect your ideas, and that's okay. However, it is missing the point terribly and sadly because you have no clue about what the Law actually is, nor how the apostles applied its principles in the NT. Here is an example:

abose:
Tithe is an OT law and practice that has no relevance these days that we're under his Grace. Jesus has paid the debt of all mankind (though you won't hear that from these "gospel entertainers/prosperity preachers) because that would affect their haul.

The terrible mistake people often make is to assume that the tithe was a 'debt', therefore 'Jesus has paid the "debt" of all mankind' which for you supposes no clues about tithing. It is this sort of misplaced thinking that makes people assume that the tithes was instituted to justify anybody in the sight of God. Unfortunately, that is not what the Bible teaches; and in all the references to tithing in the Bible you will not find such a conclusion. You don't have to argue against tithes just because some people are abusing it in many places.

abose:
Christians are mandated to study his Word and not allow it to be translated to them by dubious money hungry pastors to fund their foreign junkets or private jets, most of them won't even survive Mosaic laws but take just one to milk their congregations dry.

Tithes have nothing in Scripture to do with any of those reasons.

abose:
Abraham was already a very rich man before he gave 10% of the spoils of war and allowed his men to take the rest. Why was Apostle Paul sewing Tents to make money instead of imposing tithes? Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith and he didn't impose a tithe either because he is from the tribe of Judah and was not allowed to, Paul from the tribe of Benjamin couldn't collect either.

You're reading the "letter" instead of seeking to grasp the "spirit" (ie., the "principle" of the Law. We've been through your ideas in other threads and thrashed them thoroughly for their weakness. Though the Lord Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14), and while on earth He was not a priest (Heb. 8:4), yet He also taught and encouraged tithes rather than abrogate it (Matt. 23:23). How could He then have taught about tithes and urged it even though he was not from the tribe of Levi?

The apostle Paul made a living from tent making (Acts 18:3), yet he both received and even directly asked churches to sponsor his missionary trips (Php. 4:14-18;  Rom. 15:24;  1 Cor. 16:6;   2 Cor. 1:16). The problem with many people who fail to see these simple matters is because the only thing they see about tithes is "coercion" and from what is "imposed"; yet such people would not complain if they were reminded that financially supporting preachers is what the Lord has "ordained" (KJV) or "commanded" (NIV) or even "ordered" (NLT) in the principle of what was ordained in the OT - 1 Cor. 9:13-14.

abose:
Only the produce of the land was tithed in those days, let them show you passages where fishermen, tent makers, etc were charged tithes. Using the holy Bible to line your pockets and build castles here on earth instead of in Heaven is a WRONG doctrine and I am sure punishable on Judgment day as well, give from the heart is what Christians are instructed to do not an imposed %, wake up and educate your selves.

You would do better to wake yourself up and realize that the commandment for Christians to support preachers was not drawn vacantly from the air, but it was drawn from the OT Law (study 1 Cor. 9:13-14). You seem to be recycling the same old-fashioned dry legalism of anti-tithers who cannot see the principle of the Law in the NT. Even Jews today who tithe do so out of their financial earnings and are not so rigid about agricultural produce (see this thread where I reminded us of the fact). Perhaps it may be more helpful if you could assess issues from a healthy perspective and not from the abuses you see around you.

Now, as regards the second part of your concerns, let me first say that it is not a legalism (ie., the "letter" of the Law) that we are seeking here, remember? Rather, we're seeking to understand the 'spirit' (ie., the 'principle') behind the call to tithe. That said, let's clear a few misconceptions before going on about ministering to others through our tithes.

KunleOshob:
Remember as i stated in the other thread God ordained tithing for the levites as compensation for their not being allowed to own property as clearly stated in numbers 18:23-24.

Often times, people see only one side of a subject while completely forgetting the complimentary side. Such is the case about the Levites not being 'allowed to own property' (from a cursory reading of Numbers 18:23-24) because of the service which they occupy on Israel's behalf.

But hang on a minute: is that all there is about the Levites? I'm not sure that is the case. Let me leave you an assignment for now and then we'll come back to this very point after your answer. Please read up Leviticus 25:32-33 and see if indeed the Levites were "not being allowed to own property" -

[list]"Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of
the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time.
And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold,
and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubile:
for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among
the children of Israel."[/list]

As as I said, I won't comment just as yet; but after reading those verses, please let us know your thoughts on them in relation to Numbers 18:23-24.

KunleOshob:
Biblical tithing was also in the form of food which the tither could eat out of with his family and other less priviledge people deut 14:22-29. How are the principles involved in biblical tithing being upheld today?

Today, many churches apply their tithes to various needs as are peculair to their situation. Indeed, Christian giving applies to several concerns rather than to just one; and only when we seek out some of those concerns do we ourselves begin to understand the applications of our giving (whether tithes or other forms of offerings). A few examples of these concerns:

[list][li]to take care of those who are truly widows in the church - 1 Tim. 5:3[/li]
[li]to support godly elders in the church - 1 Tim. 5:17-18[/li]
[li]to support ministers of the Gospel - 1 Cor. 9:13-14[/li]
[li]to acknowledge the ministry of those who minister to us - Galatians 6:6[/li]
[li]to support missionaries and missions - Php. 4:14-18;  3 John 7-8[/li]
[li]to support poorer saints both locally and elsewhere - Romans 15:25-27[/li]
[li]possibly to help provide for such occasions as 'love feasts' among Christians - Jude 12[/li]
[li]to help others in times of distress (such as in disaster relief efforts) - Acts 11:27-30[/li][/list]

Of course, these are by no means an exhaustive list of possibilities to which our giving (whether tithes or other offerings) are applicable.

However, the question of whether a tither could eat his own tithe (Deut. 14:22-29) does not suggest that we could do as we please with our tithes, in so far as it was not treated as one's domestic frivolity. For one, the tither was to eat it at the stipulated center (v. 23 - "in the place which he shall choose to place his name there", and rather not at their homes. Second, they were not to selfishly eat their tithes all by themselves, but to also share with the Levites and poor folks (v. 28-29  -- "lay it up within thy gates: and the Levite, . .  and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied".

Could the Church learn from this? I trust so - if the words in Galatians 6:10 mean anything to us >> "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."

Regards.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@todak
Instead of getting angry at me and "disgusted" for exposing all the lies in your delusions about tithes why don't you just show every body from the scriptures[undiluted and NOT twisted] how any thing i have written is wrong. If you say you are disgusted maybe it is the scriptures that is disgusting you as all i wrote was clearly 100% backed by the word of God[bible]

Easy now, Kunle. This is exactly what I've been appealing against: no need for this unhealthy reactions on this subject - afterall, this is only a forum and nobody is "obligated" to pay tithe on NL, abi? I'm not sure though, that everything you wrote was clearly 100% backed by the word of God; but that is another matter entirely.

Now, to your very important and interesting question:

KunleOshob:
Ok if we are agreed on the issue of principles how are those principles inherent in the commandment to tithe under the law being upheld in the way tithing is being preached and administered in our churches today.

As you know, I'm not inclined to arguments about "churches today" doing this or that, because my quest is not to start pointing accusing fingers at anyone (doing so does not help us anyways).

However, if the question is rather about how the principles of tithing could be helpful to Christians who are desiring to tithe, the simple answer is 1 Cor. 16:2 - set aside a portion of your income as God has prospered you. This could mean a number of things, but quoting the CEV on that verse again to illustrate the point:

[list][li]"each Sunday each of you must put aside part of what you have earned"[/li][/list]

Perhaps another helpful and simple reading of that verse is as rendered by the NLT:

[list][li]"On the first day of each week, you should each put aside a portion of the money you have earned."[/li][/list]

Two basic things here:

(a) "each one of you" - this is what believers are encouraged to do, as those words do not make the exhortation applicable to only a select few in Church. To be sure, this principle was widely applicable, for verse 1 shows that the apostle had recommended the same thing to "the churches in Galatia" as well. We understand, however, that this is not a mandatory matter (so I'm not too confident to say that the "must" that CEV has in verse 2 helps us here).

(b) "put aside part" (or as NLT: "put aside a portion" - it is entirely open to the believer what he/she would like to put aside from their income as God prospers them, for whatever part someone "puts aside" is also a percentage of their income, no doubt about that. Some Christians put aside (or tithe) less than 10%, others set theirs above 10% - the principle is that God encourages cheerful giving that is not stingy or done with grumbling (see 2 Cor. 9:7). This should also help others who are wondering whether it should be done out of 'gross or net earnings', etc. - please do not get tied up with all such complications, for God seeks that a believer gives from what he/she has, and not what they do not have (2 Cor. 8:12).

These, of course, are not the only or final inference that could be drawn from the verses above; but they're offered in as simple answers to the basic question of how the principle works out for Christians desiring to tithe.

todak:
@ pilgrim
God is faithful, i never knew someone would really go on ahead, cos i tried all i could but you know whosoever God will change, he will change and whosoever he will destroy, will never change, for example is Pharaoh. God bless you, keep up the good work, i will try to compliment them. well done

@todak,

To be honest with you, I was an avowed anti-tither until God changed my heart and my life completely. Sometimes, it is difficult to see reason with other believers who see something spiritual in God's Word, and that was my attitude until He graciously started dealing with my heart. When I changed my views (after proving the faithfulness of God), I was a bit too passionate in trying to share His wonderful ways with other believers - it didn't take long for me to realize that attitudes are also important in delivering His truth. So, patience, brother, patience. . . do not let criticisms adversely affect you (I understand your gracious ways, and appreciate them). Let God show those who will be hunble enough to hear, and we can leave the rest in His hands. God bless you richly in all things.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Thanx for this wonderful insight, at least you have proven from your posts that even the Jews whom the law was directed to and who should know and understand better than our mordern day pharisees[pastors] do not tithe to their temples rather it is given to charity which is in conformity with what what i have been saying. . .

Em. . . did you say "in conformity" with what you have been saying? Well, I would not excuse you on this one, sorry. Your assertion was rather that "the mordern day Jews don't even practise this obsolete rite any more", and what I posted hardly bears any conformity with what you might've been saying. There are many "Christians" who have been making the unfortunate claim that, "Today, Orthodox Jews do not tithe"; and as 'Christians' we should know better than recycling unfounded assertions.

Nonetheless, tithes are not always tied to the Temple; so I don't see how anyone should be assuming that unless there is a 'temple', tithes cannot be given. The nation of Israel was asked to bring their tithes to the storehouse; but the concept of 'storehouse' was not even contained in the Law. Yet, the Jews understood quite well the 'spirit' of the commandment to tithe, rather than straining on the 'letter' of the Law - that is why they actually tithe today, contrary to the unhealthy claim being put forward by uninformed "Christian" ministers.

There's no need to be pejorative at anyone; so I don't see the need to keep harping in yours about "mordern day pharisees[pastors]" - such an attitude is not helping your position. If you agree that people should tithe in the same way that you are seeking "conformity" with what I've posted about Jews today who still tithe, then we should by all means encourage what is good and promote sound reasoning, rather than be reactive everytime 'tithes' are mentioned. God bless you if that is the "conformity" you've been preaching; wherefore then has been all the quarrel about this subject?

KunleOshob:
. . . that the way our pastors today preach tithing is not only wrong but it is manipulative and skewed towards selfish gain which is instigated by a love for filthy lucre.

The love for 'filthy lucre', selfish gain and other financial scandals in certain quarters should not be blamed every single time on the word 'tithes'. I understand that you may be operating on this subject only locally in the Nigerian context (pardon me, as I'm only assuming and may be wrong). However, even within Nigeria I know some very godly pastors who preach tithes without living in such scandals. Outside of Nigeria, there are many more godly people who are not rigid about this matter of tithes; and even when they encourage their members towards a healthy stewardship through tithing, they do not seek tithes for satiating any greed.

KunleOshob:
As i have always said it is not the act of tithing that i am against, it is the way the word of God is manipulated to extort it that i loath and i seek to enlighten my fellow brethen about this truth. The onus is on those twisitng the word of God to trace back there steps and ask for forgiveness.

I don't think you have handled this subject with tact and fairness. It seems more to observers that you've been against 'tithes', regardless whatever the manner it is preached by anybody. If one wants to enlighten his or her brethren, it seems the more appropriate thing to do would be to encourage tithing (whether for charity, the need of the poor, missions and missionaries, local needs of the churches, etc) - it would not be helpful to repeatedly condemn 'tithes' every single time as you have often done, only to come back now looking for "conformity" somewhere.

Cheers.

___________

Edit:

Anyway, as regards the topic of this thread, I encourage pastors to lead by example - they should long have been tithing in an honest and open manner before they teach others to do so. As often mentioned, tithing is not "obligatory" for the Christian; and those pastors who preach to others to tithe should not make it an "obligatory" matter if they cannot practise what they teach others. Happily, there are godly pastors whose denominations favour tithing, but these pastors do not enforce it upon their local congregations. If is entirely up to the Christian whether he/she would like to tithe - whether for charity or anything else that God lays upon their hearts.

Regards.

chukwudi44:
@ Pilgrim
The words of the Lord made it clear in matt:16,and John 21 that Peter is the foundation of the christian church.The testimonies of the fathers of the early church equally agrees with this interpretation.If you think Jesus or the early church fathers did not get it right you may go and correct them.

@chukwudi44,

I don't think that returning that excuse is hardly going to fit in as an appropriate answer to the simple enquiry I offered you earlier. You would observe my inputs were not trying to 'correct' the apostles or early church fathers - that was why I posited that both the apostle Paul (in Galatians 2:9) and even Peter himself in their own epistle, never once called Peter the foundation of the Church. Thank you for your efforts, but you've hardly solved your problem.

Readers, make una no vex, we don't mean to derail the subject of this thread.

___________


No vex - I assumed it was active. I'll comply pronto (note: there's an underscore ( _ ) between the first letter 'p' and the rest of the addy).

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=265611.msg3824557#msg3824557 date=1241529715]pilgrim your email is hidden (checking your profile), put it now so I send you a mail sharp sharp on my laptop na on top server I dey browse [/quote]- - - - -

Edit:

Done!

@rich_john (kayemjay),

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=265611.msg3824292#msg3824292 date=1241526972]@pilgrim1
this girl don kill me oooh! I dont know what is wrong with NL site I am the owner of the post that NL claimed to be 'kayemjay's well I cant explained what happened my IT sense never reach there. You really get time for this people am justing sitting down since morning IT no be garri O!. please we need to talk I need to know more I am an ardent student of history but I av seen someone (you) that cant combine knowlegde with constructive debate and argument, but I de fear girl we get sense pass me oH!

but really you need to be commended! [/quote]U sef, you go notice say for sometime now I been take 'unannounced leave' - I jus "resume" when the IT heat become less. When we talk behind the curtains, you go know how far - but no expect much from me (as you see me na im you go take me, abi?). Hala me email (check my profile). God go bless you plenty-plenty and nothing go take your blessing away - in Jesus Name. Amen.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
To understand the often misquoted Malachi 3:10 very well you have to go back to the bible to study and understand how tithes was administered. Evidently the levites were the ones who gave tithes to the priest and not the Israelites. The israelites gave there own tithes to the levites.[numbers18:25-28]

As can be seen in Malachi's prophecy, God was addressing the entire nation, not just the priests:

[list][li]"The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi" - Mal. 1:1[/li]
[li]". . even this whole nation" - Mal. 3:9[/li][/list]

KunleOshob:
Evidently the social structure for tithing which the Israelites used at that time does not even exist today and the mordern day Jews don't even practise this obsolete rite any more as the people (levites) legally entitled to collect it don'rt exist anymore.

Does that therefore mean that Jews today NO LONGER tithe? This false assumption is often pandered about by "Christians" - whereas informed Jews even today actually tithe. The simple point here is to understand that the informed Jew does not see things in a legalistic manner that many "Christians" apply to Scripture. These Jews understand the 'spirit' of the Word, rather than resort always and only to the "letter".

Here are examples that someone has helped to outline to the fact that it is NOT true to assert that Jews today are not tithing:

1. "Christians" who claim that Jews do not tithe today:
[list]"Today, Orthodox Jews do not tithe. No one is qualified
to receive tithes now that the priesthood and temple are gone."[/list]

How true is that claim?? See below:


A. from an Orthodox Jew:

[list][li]"You are correct; tithing is mentioned in the Torah, and WE
ORTHODOX JEWS give at leat 10% of our earnings to charity,
since the recommended amount is 20%."[/li][/list]


B. From the "[url=http://]AllExperts[/url]" website -
[list][li]"When the Temple stood, Jews were required to give a portion of
their income to the Priests. Currently WE are without a Temple AND WE
GIVE THIS AMOUNT TO CHARITY INSTEAD"[/li][/list]


C. Comments from Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir -
[list][li]"The Biblical tithing obligation applies only to agricultural
produce in the land of Israel. But for hundreds of years it has been
customary to donate a portion of our income to charity, and the most
accepted amount is one tenth of after-tax income.
The *Shulchan Arukh (authoritative Code of Jewish law) states that
the average person should give one-tenth of his income to charity,
and that anything less is considered stingy. This custom retains
the spirit of the original agricultural tithe. The personal element is
maintained, as this tithe is distributed according to individual
discretion and is in addition to regular taxes, including communal
levies, which are administered by the community as a whole."
(see *Shulchan Arukh
[(authoritative Code of Jewish law) Yoreh Deah 249:1)[li][/list]


D. Wikipedia articles on "orthodox Judaism" and tithe -
[list][li]"Orthodox Judaism still regards tithe obligations as IN EFFECT on produce grown in the Land of Israel, although the obligations
have been somewhat modified since the days of the Hebrew Bible and
Talmud and proceeds from the tithes are no longer given to a Kohen or
Levite or taken to Jerusalem."[/li][/list]


Having read the above (which can be confirmed from many scholarly Jewish sources), is it healthy for us "Christians" to keep recycling ideas borrowed from other "Christians" and their websites claiming that 'Jews today no longer tithe'?? Abeg, make una dey recycle ideas small small - we Christians should know better than making public statements that are false and unfounded.

Cheers.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
[quote author=brainbox1 link=topic=263218.msg3823376#msg3823376 date=1241516471]While it is important to acknowledge that the law was important while it lasted, it is essential you are reminded that the law has been abolished by the law of the Christ. Christians therefore are guided not by the mosaic laws but by the law of the christ. However, the law might have been done away it, but the principles behind the law are still very relevant even in christian lives because the one who gave the law is God (The same one we still serve).

Thanks for this very simple but precise explaination. This is what some of us have been trying to explain since, the apostles also wrote several scriptures to explain this reality but some people are obvoiusly tooo thick in the head to realise this and would rather cut themselves off the grace of christ by trying to uphold the letters of the law.[/quote]I no fit laugh. You . . talk about the "principles" of the Law?!? I hear.  That's the very same thing I can affirm as regards the Law that I've always been talking about (its principles), I don't and will not refer to anyone as 'obvoiusly tooo thick in the head'. It's not healthy to address others the way you have been doing, Kunle. Nevertheless, let's remind you of several examples to the fact that I've been talking about the "principles of the Law" (even as far back as 2007):


1. in response to ishmael:
[list]

ishmael:
And the Apostles in the new testament also made us to understand that we were no longer living under the law.

That is true (Rom. 6:14). But they did not mean by that principles of the Law have been done away with; because it is very imporant to understand how they applied its principles in the Christian life (1 John 3:4).

[/list]

2. In another relevant thread where I dealt a bit extensively on the Law:
[list][li]

It is true that I had distinguished between "the letter" and "divine principles" of the Law - and I did so far earlier than that in showing how the term "the Law" is used in the NT in various contexts:


(b) Its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:
* specific commandments
* prophecies
* exhortations
* divine principles

. . . and also elsewhere:


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

[/list]

3. Even on this thread, I reiterated the same thing:
[list]

"I don't think so. In stating that, "when u aren't under something(law),u are not subject to it or its tenets", you're not making issues any simpler for yourself. In simple terms, a "tenet" is a "principle"; hence, it is sadly untrue to draw the inference that Christians are not subject to the principles of the Law."

. . . It is not the legalism of the Law that is being sought after in the NT; rather, it is the "tenets" (that is, the "principles".

[/li][/list]


Finally, I'm glad that those who may not have paid close attention to the "principles" are now coming round seeing the point - that is not something new that I started talking about recently, but has always and consistently been what I urged others to see.

@brainbox1,

brainbox1:
While it is important to acknowledge that the law was important while it lasted, it is essential you are reminded that the law has been abolished by the law of the Christ. Christians therefore are guided not by the mosaic laws but by the law of the christ. However, the law might have been done away it, but the principles behind the law are still very relevant even in christian lives because the one who gave the law is God (The same one we still serve). Interestingly, all of the aspects of life you mentioned as being derived from the law are mentioned in the creek scriptures and there are clear directives on them by either Jesus or his disciples unlike tithing which was clearly replaced by volunteering giving in the early congregation. You can read these scriptures to get my points better- Mark 12:30; Matt. 19:4-6,1 Tim 2:11-13,1 Corint.14:33,34.

[>snip<]

So my dear if people point to these aspects of life that were also addressed in the law, it is because they are clearly stated as relevant to christian living today in the law of the christ. Cheers

Thank you for making the same essential point I've been making for eons - "principles", not "legalism". In as much as I have not asserted anywhere that Christians are under the Law, my point has been the very same as in yours - "the principles behind the law are still very relevant even in christian lives". Need I say anymore?

Regards.

Now, let's review the verse you quoted to answer the basic question that has brought us so far:

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=265611.msg3822208#msg3822208 date=1241483457]

However, I don't see where anything you said has established the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Not a single convincing line you offered has made the point. Let's see:

Hey Pilgrim

I was wondering if this would help.

Galatians 2:9

9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

The early christians regarded Peter as Bishop Of Rome and Pope of the Church there has never been any question about that. All churches with direct links to the early christians hold this belief, it is not just the Catholic Church that holds that belief. Whether or not they are in union with Rome, they hold the belief that Peter is the first Pope and that he has always been regarded as the first among equals.[/quote]Carefully look again at the Galatians 2:9 you quoted and ask yourself what correlation it bears to your commentary. That verse does not say that Peter is the foundation of the Church, unless there's a serious confusion in our minds between a 'pillar' and a 'foundation' - they're clearly not the same! When chukwudi44 quoted the same Galatians 2:9, I made the same observation, and up until now there's not been a pointer from any Catholic demonstrating that "pillar" is the same as "foundation".

If we carefully and honestly observe that verse, you'd notice it does not mention Peter alone; it rather mentions him second between three names: "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars".

Second, the word "pillars" is in the plural, not singular - indicating that it was not only Peter that "seemed to be" addressed as such, but that the very same thing is said about James and John. Surely, if you use this verse to argue that Peter was the pillar and therefore the foundation of the Church, then by the same inference we could say that James and John were also "the foundations" as effectually as they were referred to as "pillars". What is more, it was James that was mentioned first in that verse before Peter (Cephas). We therefore see that Galatians 2:9 does not call Peter the foundation of the Church, in as much as Scripture does not confuse "pillar" for "foundation".

Third, isn't it peculiar that it was not Rome that the apostle Paul referred to in that chapter, but rather to Jerusalem? This is obvious in carefully reading verse 1 - "I went up again to Jerusalem"; and those whom he described as "pillars" in verse 9 are clearly explained in verse 2 simply as "them which were of reputation". The word 'pillars' (verse 9) was Paul's way of identifying those who were 'of reputation' (verse 2) - which establishes the fact that he was not referring to only one person, but several persons (". . them which were of reputation". Thus, Paul certainly did not mean to call Peter "the foundation" of the Church; and by "pillars", he was not confusing them (James and John) for the "foundation" either.

Perhaps I should quickly mention two very important points here, that -

(a) while the same apostle Paul never once called Peter the foundation of the Church, he yet categorically affirmed that there was only one foundation - Jesus Christ - and there is none other (1 Corinthians 3:11).

(b) on apostle Peter's part, he bears out the same fact that 'the foundation' was not himself, but rather Jesus Christ. No informed believer doubts for an instance that when Peter said: "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone" (1 Peter 2:6), he certainly was referring to such texts of the OT as the following -

[list]"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD,
Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,
a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation:
he that believeth shall not make haste" - (Isaiah 28:16)[/list]

You can see by comparing those verses (1 Peter 2:6 and Isaiah 28:16), it's obvious Peter was not referring to himself as that foundation at all, but was pointing to Christ Himself. It would have laid the matter simple and clear for Catholics if the apostle Peter had written in his own epistle that he himself (Peter) was the very foundation spoken of in Scripture - he didn't do so, nor did any other apostle describe him as such.


That, ~Lady~, as is obvious, is the main issue here, and not the other unrelated comments on other subjects. As regards the idea that Peter was ever called the foundation of the Church, neither Galatians 2:9 or any other text calls him so - even he himself did not say so, but pointed rather to Christ in harmony with what the prophets had declared.

Shalom.

Hi ~Lady~

How are you? Enjoying God's grace, no doubt, yes? If so, glory be to God.

I've patiently gone through your comments on the issues I offered chukwudi44. Unfortunately, you have not added anything crucial to substantiate a reasoned answer to the question, but rather have towed the same style as in his posts. No worries, I'll just highlight the essential points again so the gist doesn't get lost in unrelated issues. First, let me disabuse your mindset from non-essentials, some of which you had tried to read into my posts unfoundedly:

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=265611.msg3822545#msg3822545 date=1241493460]

You're misreading me, as I did not disparage Augustine. I only showed you the prevailing circumstances of his day and the conditions that led him to form his opinions of both visible and invisible foundation for the Church - not because that is what the 'scriptures' teach, but simply because that is the mantra being sung in Roman Catholic traditions.

Your assertion here is highly flawed.
1) Because you are of the assumption that all has to go by scripture alone, scripture refutes that, and history of christianity refutes that.
2) You are of the assumption that the scripture fell from the sky
3) You are of the assumption that Jesus wrote the scripture
4) You are of the assumption that Catholic tradition contradicts scripture.
5) You are of the assumption that by the time Augustine wrote, the Bible was already defined.[/quote]Just compare what you quoted from me with your comments following the quote: where did you see such "assumptions" in my quote? I don't think it helps to be unnecessarily miscalculating to read your mindset into other people's posts, ~Lady~. That is not a healthy way to discuss, and it doesn't help your understand at all (if you'd try to understand others). I say this respectfully, not slyly; and my appeal is that you simply follow what others are saying and dialogue on what you read, and not reading your own "assumptions" into their posts to make it look like it happened that way.

That said, a few other comments before the main issue:

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=265611.msg3822545#msg3822545 date=1241493460]the problem here is that you view the foundation of peter as separate from the foundation of christ, the catholics don't view it as such. we view it in light of christ, not apart from it. so if you will question us, question us on what we believe not what we don't believe.

. . . This has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Christ established a papacy[/quote]This is the essential point: where Christ ever established a Papacy. Indeed, Catholics may believe it is so; and I don't have a problem with anyone believing what they want to, regardless of the fact that they may be sincerely mistaken. All the same, my question zeroes in on what you believe, and not on what you don't believe. One thing , though, since the dichotomy of 'seperate foundations' is not mine, you're absolutely wrong to infer that idea into my position. Perhaps you meant Augustine of Hippo, and not pilgrim.1 of this forum.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=265611.msg3822208#msg3822208 date=1241483457]I am still waiting on someone to show me documents from early christianity that disputes Peter as the Pope. All of them come after the reformation. 1500 years later.[/quote]Perhaps those few that have been cited already may serve as a reminder. Following chukwudi44's referral to Augustine of Hippo, I already observed how sancta (in trying to proffer answers to the question: "What is the Papacy?" told us pointedly:

[list][li]"St. Peter was made the chief of the Apostles and visible head of the Church by Jesus Christ."[/li][/list]

It was for this reason that I later pointed out the fact that there were documents which saw Christ as Head instead of Peter:

[list]

"St. Augustine of Hippo - Expositions on the Psalms, PSALM III. " (you can view an example here).

In such works of Augustine, we read the unmistakable assertion several times that Christ (not peter) is the Head of the Church:

'This Psalm can be taken as in the Person of Christ another way; which is that whole Christ should speak? I mean by whole, with His body, of which He is the Head, according to the Apostle, who says, "Ye are the body of Christ, and the members." He therefore is the Head of this body; wherefore in another place be saith, "But doing the truth in love, we may increase in Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together and compacted'


"The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God." [read it from this source]

[/list]

There are quite a number of such documents (as you requested) that point to Christ, not Peter, as the Head of the Church. Of course, you quoted the second part of in my answer and queried:

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=265611.msg3822545#msg3822545 date=1241493460]

"The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God." [read it from this source]

Don't mean to sound redundant but how does this differ from Catholic teaching?[/quote]Lol, dear ~Lady~, you were being reactive unnecessarily. The link I cited there was actually a Catholic weblink! I wasn't quoting a non-Catholic weblink for you any other RCC to suppose how it "differs", but you simply missed the reason why I offered that link. Calm down and go take another look, and come back to understand that this fits in perfectly to show you the simple fact that many documents reverred by Catholics themselves point to Christ as the Head of the Church, rather than to Peter! Unless you want to make TWO Heads of ONE Body, then I would see why your reactive response. Yet, we all know that there is ONLY ONE Head taught in Scripture for the Body of Christ - ONLY ONE, not two.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=265611.msg3822545#msg3822545 date=1241493460]No it is not different, however the Roman Catholic Church is but one church in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church consists of 23 Churches, 22 eastern churches and one western church. All in union with the Bishop of Rome.

When we speak, we aren't speaking of the RCC alone but of the Catholic Church.[/quote]You need to go back and see what sancta has been saying, because he does not seem to agree with your idea:

[list]"i beg you in the name of God, forget about them for now and try to know what the true catholic faith is all about and hold unto it since you are still with the vatican II sect which is claimning to be the catholic church and misleading people"[/list]

As well the same point he expressed to chukwud44:

[list]"The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ, and those who believe all her infallible teachings are her member. Vatican two council (1962-1965)was heretical because it denies the Catholic Faith in so many piont"[/list]

Earlier, though, he had made the same point several times:

[list]"Thank you so much lady. I sincerely wish you the very best. Above all I pray for the gift of the true catholic faith for you from my heart since you truly love it though are at the wrong side which is the Vatican II sect that has brought up the counterfeit church hence deceiving people in making them believe they are Catholics. The truth is that the people who go along with the new Vatican II religion do not have the true faith. To be saved, they need to come to the traditional Catholic faith.

. . . . Notice that it says heretics are also outside the Catholic Church. And who is a heretic? It is any baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, after the 2nd Vatican council which took place btw 1962-65, the church ( its pope from John XXIII – Benedict XVI together with their bishop and priest) that has arisen from there have embraced and constantly taught heresy. They even deny this dogma and its sad that people embrace their teachings thus becoming heretics as well."[/list]

There are more; but in summary, sancta does not stand alone: he is only one among many, many "Catholics" who reject other Catholics - and if for these former group, the "Vatican II sect" is a counterfeit church and deceiving people, would it be correct to say that you guys are in common league? (that is, are you sure that your assertion "All in union with the Bishop of Rome" fits the things that sancta addressed to your consideration?) It does not appear that a Catholic who says that "the people who go along with the new Vatican II religion do not have the true faith" would at the same time be in "union" with the Bishop of Rome that he views as nothing other than a "counterfeit church". I don't mean to stir up any uncertainties, but it's just not tenable to make a statement for all Catholics as you did.

These are merely the unrelated issues; and I'll go on to address and focus more on the one question that have been of concern to me, which informed my dialogue with chukwudi44.

anonimi:
Pastors who request tithes from their congregation are also required by their dispensation to also offer tithes as per Malachi 1:

6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?
7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.
8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.
9 And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts.
10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.

This also should help put  the over-quoted Malachi 3:8 in proper context.

@anonimi,

Malachi 1:1 - "The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi"

Malachi 3:9 - "Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation"

Perhaps you are missing the highlighted words in those verses to help you reason carefully that Malachi 3 was addressing the entire nation, not just the priests. Reason through again in chapter 3 -

[list][list]4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.[/list][/list]

Learn to look carefully before drawing unhealthy conclusions. Anyhow, I hope you're doing well? Blessings.

@kayemjay,

How body? Me, I no too much oh! Combining a hard day's work with book/studies no easy - I agree; but nobody ever said it is 'impossible', abi? Fortunately for me, na part time I dey do the Juniper, so I got loads of time inbetween. As for the pic. . .hmm, time neva come yet for that one, hehe. Enjoy.

kayemjay:
@pilgrim1
you too much oh! even with my knowledge of these things you are writing I cant debate this long I appreciate your skills. cant really belive you're into IT, you go get time so? o girl e no easy for my end I'm into IT too.

I for say make you marry me but I dey fear se you go get sense pass me! but girl you too much put your pic lets see you now

Dear chukwudi44,

Thank you for your concerns and good natured replies. Perhaps the only thing you may not realize is that your own answers are not working in your favour to establish the only thing I requested: from the same Bible that was canonized by Catholics, please show that Peter is ever referred to as the foundation upon which the Church is being built. That was all I requested; and although you have been unable to do so, it's interesting pointers you have returned.

chukwudi44:
I posted the rise in the roman catholic piopulation to refute your assertion on the decline of Roman catholicism in America and not to validate the divinity of the Papacy.

Okay, but the source has not been contested - and was cited in my reply to your own misgiving against Lutheranism and Calvinism. I then wonder how you seem to have deviated from validating the Papacy to an unrelated issue?

chukwudi44:
Contrary to your assertons, the fact remains that the letters of clement ,polycarp and Ignatius was regarded with the same authourity with the books in todays bible by the christians of the first four centuries.

Could you tell us then why those same letters were not canonized?

chukwudi44:
About tertullians statement about later books,do you know that the epistle of clement was written before the gospel of John and the book of Revelation.

Lol, this is awesome, chukwudi44! It seems queer that since Clement's epistles predated John's writings and regarded with the same authority, it was nonetheless rejected as an appropriate document to be considered canonized. You and I know that by the statement "that is false which is of a later date", Tertullian was not meaning that John's writings that "came later" than Clement's was therefore false. So, I wonder why you keep circling round these points. More than that, how does this very point in your quote answer the primary question of Peter being the foundation of the Church? hmm?

chukwudi44:
The books of hebrews ,revelation,jude james were heavily attacked as apocryphal works,the authorship of hebrew in particular was heavily disputed.

Okay, calm down sir. First, I'm not one of those who's "heavily" disputing those books. Second, none of those books/epistles ever declared that Peter was the foundation of the Church. If you find a verse that says so, please share so we can all learn.

chukwudi44:
The book of revelation was said to be too frightening and was almost discarded,It took the wisdom of the catholic bishops at the synod of hippo to canonise these books.

And that was supposed to have answered the basic question thus far?

chukwudi44:
You can verify that the Shepherd of hermas and the gospel of hebrews was very popular among the early christiansand even more popular than some books in today's bible.

Okay, I hear. Question: it's often boasted that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible - why then were the more popular books (bearing the same authority) rejected in favour of the epistles of the apostles? I'm not contesting anything about the Bible - I love it with all my heart; but I'm asking you to apply a bit of reason at the implication of your concerns.

chukwudi44:
The fact remains we don't have a grasp of everything that actually happens but testimonies from the early church point to the primacy of simon peter,if Idont beleive them i can as well discard the books they canonised.,because as much as 100 books were in circulation .

Isn't it quite strange that the Catholic Church could not sieve out just 1 out of those 100 epistles (some of which you claim were "more popular" and canonize it among the books of the NT? Stranger yet that those books which were canonized do not teach the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church.

There was only one question/request that has taken us this far. Good exercise on your part, and I'm not being tedious to you. I'd thought you had something other than the RCC tradition to help solve the mystery. . and thanks for your efforts all the same.

@Kunleoshob,

KunleOshob:
Classical pilgrim.1, always quick to resort to insults to put her points across. As you well know i have written more than enough to correct your erronous position on tithes in the past and i realized that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You refused to admit the fallacies in your positon despite all the overwhelming evidence provided. instead you are quick to pick other unrelated verses in the bible, twist it and force your own meaning into it to further buttress your point. how is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is so intellectually corrupt And that is why i refused to engage you in further dialogue on this topic cos the truth is already known to you even though you refuse to accept it.

For one, you'd be the only one claiming the false assertions you're making. Go through my entries on this thread - not once have I sought to resort to insults in engaging ttalks, and others who have commented have observed the civility between us. Second, there was nothing you tried to correct - and when you quoted texts out of context in this thread, I started out calling your attention to the fact that you were being unfair in your attitude. The points we have discussed so far did not lead to your unnecessary accusations, and both ttalks and I were able to bring our discussion to an amicable close.

You only refuse to engage me for the simple reason that you actually don't have anything intelligent to say. Let's leave it at that, with fingers crossed that the day you've upgraded on your attitude, then we can read you. Cheers.