₦airaland Forum

debosky:
Don't misunderstand - at it's root, tithe means 10% (or some other percentage) . Moses and Jacob paid tithes outside of the mosaic law (albeit in single instances) so you cannot define tithes ONLY on the basis of mosaic law.

I'm learning everyday - so thank you again for making my point with the words in bold. Thank you, sir.

@duduspace,

duduspace:
@Pilgrim1

I do admire your logic and reasoning ability, I would however like to ask you this 3 questions, feel free not to answer them if you so wish.

Thank you for your enquiries. I would have liked to take my time to reply to them in detail, but for now let me attempt some soundbite answers.

duduspace:
1. In light of your various writings what is your conclusion about God? That he:

a. Exists
b. Probably exists
c. Does not exist
d. Any other reason you can come up with.

I would take (a) and (d) - the latter leads me to conclude about the former.

duduspace:
2. Why have you come to this conclusion?

a. Because you know it for a fact and can prove it.
b. Because you don't know everything
c. Because you believe
d. Any other reason you can come up with.

Again, the first part of (a) and then (d) - the latter leads to the former.

duduspace:
3. How does your conclusion affect your life and daily interactions with others.

In some way, I've come to have tremendous respect for people (even when they hold different worldviews from mine); and I'm quite dogmatic about two things:

(a) I don't know everything about what I hold dear in my life

(b) I cannot submit my experience to be dismissed by someone outside of that experience.

duduspace:
My first question would have been to ask if you were a christian but your writing does not suggest a typical run of the mill christian.

No, I did not start out as a Christian but became one afterwards.

My apologies if these are too skeletal - I did not mean to be economical with gist. I'd be glad to explicate them if need be; but for a start I didn't want to clutter a good invitation to dialogue.

Regards.

sancta:
Hello Pilgrim. 1

Quite a long time. I hope you must have visited the site: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com as regards your major objections with chukwudi. The book I promised to send you (THE BIBLE PROVES THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) will get to us here in Nigeria hopefully by next week. If you are still interested in it (though I pray you should), you can send me your mailing address via my mail salvesancta@yahoo.com so I can send it to you. I also believe the DVD’s: Creation And Miracles, Death And The Journey Into Hell and their audios on MP3 would be of immense value to you. If you need them as well, don’t fail to let me know. All are for free.

Hi sancta,

Please forgive me, I didn't ignore you at all (the long delay was unintensional). I've actually been taking my time to read through articles on the website you recommended, and thank you for the offer to make some other materials available to me upon request. I definitely would have occasion at some point to request further materials, if for nothing else but to help my research in other areas. Yes, I guarantee that your offer would be treated with utmost respect and discretion. Many thanks again, and regards.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Not difficult at all. The grid of jewish exegesis clearly states that Oxen stand for ALL species of labor. If our officials are labouring somewhere then according to biblical understanding they have every right to chop from the same place where they labour.

Ah, there - chop from where you labour, abi? It does not, however, carry through that they should chop in a fashion that spells 'c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n' (as hinted in the humour earlier).

Anyways. . .

Pastor AIO:
What is obvious is that there is next to nothing to be found in the letters of Paul that is not derived from the Pharisaic traditions.  Sure, by his own admission he was raised and educated as a pharisee however in his later stage I do not see anywhere where he has departed from pharisee ideology.

The cloak does not make the monk, as they say. He may have derived his interpretative outlines for certain texts from the matrix of Jewish hermeneutics, but in just the same way did the other writers of the Biblical documents. Perhaps a hint of this as normative could be deduced from what the Lord Jesus taught His disciples in Matt. 23:2 & 3 - "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" - the essential feature was one of hermeneutics, but it does not extend to application, for which He cautioned: "but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

Pastor AIO:
The pharisees had 4 ways of interpreting biblical text.  These were called the Pardes.
Peshat is what most christians do when they read their bible.  Yet there is so much of christianity that is derived via Remez and derash.  These were actually a system of inference with rules and they were developed via a dialectic between groups of pharisees.

You're absolutely correct (or, should I say that I agree with you - leaving room for others who might not share the same view). I'm quite familiar with Pardes, but the problem most Christians have with Biblical exegesis is to take just one out of the four (such as Peshat) and rest all their thoughts thereto, seeing nothing else. Although Peshat has its benefit in Biblical exegesis, it does not stand alone as exclusive from other methods - to hold on to Peshat alone tends to eisegesis (the opposite of exegesis).

Pastor AIO:
An interpretation does not get accepted simply after one individual gets a notion and decides it's an insight into truth.

True - and that is why using only one out of the four hermeneutical devices is unhealthy. All four (Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod) are intended to work together in hermeneutics and Biblical exgesis. Unfortunately, it happens that many people tend to apply only one of them and will never see beyond that one approach.

Pastor AIO:
I'm thinking of the RCCG pastor that says do not come to church empty handed and derives that teaching from the bible.  I'm yet to be convinced that his line of inference is a valid one.

I understand why you may feel that way - perhaps you might have been approaching the verse from only Peshat and did not consider other approaches as a collective whole. Applying the Pardes as a 'wholeness' would make the point clear that the verse as used by the RCCG pastor may not be problematic.

_____________

addendum:

In the case of the RCCG pastors use of that verse (Deut. 16:16), one wonders about Paul's use of the OT verses in both 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5. Certainly, anyone who would have problems with the apostle's hermeneutics would only be approaching his epistles from Peshat while ignoring the others - Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod.

faith69:
sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

You keep repeating this mantra that has no basis on all that have been said. Making statements just because you said so is not the same thing as what is authentically the case. I'm not disappointed, yours is just one more of those vacant assertions made for the fun of it.

faith69:
also somewhere ealier you said christianity preceded roman catholicism,please i would like you to educate me on when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom

Please quote me in context, and I would oblige you what I meant there. Cheers.

@debosky,

Thank you for that summary once again. It captures the essence of what some of us have been trying to say, and you did it in a very simple manner. There's no need for anyone to use tithe or any other type of Christian activity to castigate people; and once we can understand this, much of the disaffection will be minimised.

KunleOshob:
I just thought i'd asked, even if christianity is a religion is it the way it is defined above that it is being practised by most churches today? Is it that way you practise your own christianity or is it by practising man made doctrines and obsolete rites[tithes, first fruits e.t.c] of the old testament which are NOT relvant to true christian worship.

Kunle, if you practise anything different from what you read in that verse, keep it to yourself. You're full of looking at what others are doing and never looking at your own self. I know what I do, I understand that verse, and I quoted it in reply to what was said prior to my reply.

Enigma:
I have highlighted this post and bolded a part of it because it captures my attitude to some of the discussions of tithing on this thread and others and why I refuse to engage in debate on irrelevant or secondary issues. I too have found that looking for small mistypes or minor inaccuracies or even misrepresenting what people had in fact said quite accurately, when put in context, totally detracts from the essential issues.

Using distractions to discuss unrelated issues often come from the anti-tithing camp. If they never mentioned such unrelated issues, no one would be replying to those issues in the first place. It turns out that when replies are made to them, the anti-tithers using such distractions realize too quickly they were wasting time on non-essentials and then immediately abandon their own arguments.

Enigma:
Things like "Christianity is/is not a religion";  oh you opponent of tithing once said "tithing is perfectly OK" and several other examples of such pettiness, I find to be a waste of time not advancing discussion.

I never discussed such lines until they were mentioned - if anti-tithers are going to keep a good head on their shoulders, they ought to be thinking and maintaining course on the topic, not interpolating such unrelated issues into the body of the discussions and then whining when such issues are addressed.

Enigma:
I think the central points being made by opponents of the modern teaching of "tithing" remain simple; overwhelmingly, "tithing" is being taught to Christians as an obligation (this is wrong and should be opposed); teach people the truth i.e. they have freedom whether or not to "tithe"; if a Christian does indeed know the truth and yet chooses to tithe then that is "perfectly OK". Very simple!!!

This copout is often the song that comes at the end of an exposure to the what anti-tithers cannot bear in their own arguments.

Enigma:
As the title of the thread clearly implies and as opponents of the modern teaching of "tithing" have said repeatedly - a main motivation for challenging the teaching is the clear evidence of the prevalence of abuse and false teaching of the "doctrine".

We can address false teaching, not the often-repeated semantics that blur between distinctions. On both sides, there are unhealthy assertions, and one wonders why anti-tithers only look at what happens across the road but never look at what's been happening in their own camp.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040264#msg4040264 date=1245199573]Once again, it is not Omenuko, but tpiah. I was referring to tpiah.[/quote]And Omenuko has no right to discuss in this thread? What is so disturbing about discussing what Omenuko broached for consideration that you've not been calm to reason along with others? Why this repeated dismissive attitude?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040264#msg4040264 date=1245199573]Madam I already know the history of the Nestorian church, no be today I study history. The Nestorians had a schsim, in order for this schism to occur they must have been a part of something. If the bbc article did not trace them to the Catholics, the bbc needs to do a better research because it lacks logic.[/quote]It is clear that unbiased history does not make the 'Nestorian' Church a part of the Catholic Church - that is why you should not assume that the BBC "needs to do a better research because it lacks logic" - what logic? The logic of falsehood? Would it be 'logic' if they had stated what you had wanted to see by dragging the Nestorian Church into Catholic origin in the 2nd century? No - the BBC quite clearly and succinctly captured the essence of true and scholarly reports on the History of the Nestorian Church. The reason why Catholics typically react the way you did is not strange - because the Catholic Church has been trying ever so hard to discredit them on unfounded reasons:

[list]

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the apellation “Nestorian, after the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical, political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.

source: Wikipedia

[/list]

Why do Catholics (not all Catholics though) behave in such a manner - to seek a way of discrediting what does not follow their own ideology? I'm just wondering, because this whole drama would have been unnecessary if you'd calmed down and reasoned issues through and not being reactive unnecessarily.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040264#msg4040264 date=1245199573]Here's a link
http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_timeline.html
It was at the council of ephesus that they went into schism because of the nature of Jesus. They were Catholic before then, they were present at the other councils, therefore making them Catholics before their schism[/quote]You're the one trying ever so hard to "make them Catholics" - just because they were present at some councils? This is what the link says about Ephesus - "431 Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorius as a heretic" - and yet, the 'Nestorian Church' did not know itself by such a name, because it was a misnomer. The reason why they came to be known as such is partly due to Rome seeking persistently to discredit them for the reason that they held the view that Nestorius was not a heretic. More to the point was that this Church had its own See and were not under the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Any ideas about why the same link states that "School of the Persians in Edessa first closed by Romans" in just about the same period?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040264#msg4040264 date=1245199573]Oh I very well did, but if it will make u feel better sorry, now prove your assertions and use logic please.[/quote]I doubt you "very well did", considering the way you kept charging full speed and yet missing the point. I just outlined it once again in my reply just above.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040264#msg4040264 date=1245199573]Just so we can be clear, I replied to tpiah, then you replied to me, then I replied to you, Omenuko was never in the picture as far as I was concerned. But anyway, prove your assertions.[/quote]Please see my reply above.

____________________________________

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040279#msg4040279 date=1245199849]Pilgrim.1
I'm going to quote from your own source to show that they were Catholics before their schism.

Notice that they had a representative at the 1st council of Nicea, making them Catholic at that time.
This is your own source that I am using o.
http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html[/quote]Just because they were present at the Council of Nicea does not "make them Catholic" - that is simply laughable. Mar Aprim was the representative of the Assyrian Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., but it does not make the Assyrian Church a Roman Catholic church - rather, the Roman Catholic Church "recognized" his great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. Just being present at a Council does not in itself constitute "origin" of a Church from Catholicism.

@~Lady~,

I would like to make something clear to you, please - if you can be reasonable enough to take it in.

We're not in the era of the Catholic crusade when the Catholics tried to kill everybody that was non-Catholic and discredit those who rejected Catholicism. The attitude you demonstrated all through didn't help your arguments, and I found discussing with other Catholics like Omenuko a better and more reasonable engagement. Why? Simply because he was willing to be considerate and discuss, not start out being reactive and maintain a dismissive over-rated importance. Several times I asked that you calmed down and try to be reasonable, but these all went overboard; and as such you kept shouting "tpiah" like he owned the thread or that is the only person discussing in this thread.

Now, why did I bring in the case of the Assyrian Church? I mentioned several times it was in response to Omenuko's assertions earlier. It was infact at the point he posted the reply below that I decided to correct that misconception:

Omenuko:
The person who created this thread said, "Don't let the Catholic Faith Deter You From the Christian Faith."  What the originator fails to understand is that the Christian faith is the Catholic Faith.  The Catholic Church is the original church.  The term 'Catholic' was the term the members of the early church used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heretical doctrine from pseudo-christian sects.  What the poster fails to understand is that the Catholic Church included all of the apostolic churches, such as the Roman/Latin, Russian, Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian, [size=14pt]etc[/size].

This trend went on with such quotes as -

Omenuko:
Afterward, the Greek (Eastern Orthodox) and Roman/Latin churches separated around 1054AD (although it was not a hard split).  All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

Following that, I replied thus: "That is precisely the problem. From all points considered, it does not follow that all churches were at any point "part of" the Catholic Church. If we revisit Church history, we find that some churches indeed grew almost indepently apart from the Catholic Church; and it was only when they convened to deliberate on doctrines that the schisms occured." To this, his reply was thus:

Omenuko:
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church. I do agree with you that there were some churches (though quite small in number) that developed apart from the 'Catholic Church'.

There were indeed some churches that developed apart from the Catholic Church, and these were quite large churches, autonomous from the Catholic Church that had its See in the Roman Empire - to this, Omenuko was agreed. However, when Catholics keep trying to force the idea that anything they read about Church history must be bent backwards to mean that ALL Churches were "Catholic" before the schism in the 5th century, that was why I replied thus:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=284000.msg4040047#msg4040047 date=1245194723]Okay, here are just snapshots to address some misconceptions, among which are the ideas that "all churches were  part of the Catholic Church" before the broke away some 451 AD, etc., etc. We've repeatedly observed that is not the case, and here are a few things to consider:[/quote]Rather than calm down to read through, reason along and make comments, you started off charging indiscriminately and continued to miss the point I was making about Catholics claiming that "ALL CHURCHES" were Catholic before the schism of the 5th century! When I pointed out certain pointers that such is not the case, you again tried to dragoon the BBC report to make the churches there "Catholic". Now you came back typically with the same dismissive attitude and quipping "If the bbc article did not trace them to the Catholics, the bbc needs to do a better research because it lacks logic" - you're sounding as if the BBC must by default claim what is a false history typical of Catholic arguments; and if the BBC refuses to rewrite history in that bend, then you charge them with unscholarly research! When further discussion ensue to show you how dismissive you've been all along with such unhealthy attitude, you come back hooting "tpiah", "tpiah" all over! What is really the problem that you feel all roads must lead to Roman Catholicism and 'tpiah' before you can see reason in what others are saying? Your reaction does not address issues but just stretch things far too presumptuously and yet miss everything! This was why I felt if you're not inclined to discuss, you should be better left alone charging full speed and missing the target - I'm not new to the Catholic attitude of being unreasonable.

KAG:
Wow, thanks pilgrim1, you totally understood my post and responded to the posts to it probably better than I could.

Lol, but no - yours was in a class of its own, couldn't have improved on it.

toneyb:
I don't think you really want to have any meaningful discussion you want to go off tangent as usual.

I'm not going off any tangent, that's why I've been reserved and asking simple questions. I'm not pushing anything or in haste to make driven assertions like confusing "writers" for what it is not or using the word 'canon' wider than it appertains to what is being discussed. For that reason, I simply ask questions. If you're not inclined to discuss it, no worries.

toneyb:
I asked you a question and you said I should please start from there.

I did, because obviously your idea of a "canon" is just linear.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040147#msg4040147 date=1245196745]Lol, now you can read my emotions. Please talk about the topic. If they weren't Catholic, prove that before the schism they weren't catholic.[/quote]I have taken the time, watched your hasty reactions and asked you to calm down - we're not in the era of the catholic crusades. I just left a link to your request, thank you.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040147#msg4040147 date=1245196745]See how confused you are, I wasn't talking about Omenuko, it is Tpiah that I quoted. Or is it that you do not care to take the time to find the truth that automatically you think we're spewing rubbish?[/quote]You didn't follow what we were discussing before assuming that others are spewing rubbish. How do you just jump in and make absolutely no connection between what people are discussing before writing them off - what rationality does that display about the way you argue?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040117#msg4040117 date=1245196180]But even still, the bbc article was written in present times, it was written after the schism, therefore it would call the assyrian church a non-catholic church, and it will rightfully say it existed since the 2nd century. But what you fail to realise is that during that 2nd century when it was founded, it was a part of the Catholic church. Today the Assyrian church is not catholic, but was it catholic back in the day?[/quote]Please stop making unfounded statements. The BBC article did not trace the Assyrian Church to a Catholic origin in the 2nd century; and you could please calm down and see the following -

   http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040134#msg4040134 date=1245196507]Pilgrim this is what you posted.

[size=13pt]You[/size] are not talking about the Armenian church that everyone is talking about. Where did [size=13pt]ASSYRIAN[/size] come from that [size=13pt]you[/size] are talking about?[/quote]Please take some time and READ - READ the sequence of why I posted that following Omenuko's assertion earlier. Your hasty responses are becoming hysterical.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040117#msg4040117 date=1245196180]Oh miss pilgrim you are way too funny, when you can't provide any evidence you result to discredit the messenger. Talk about the topic o jare, provide evidence, and I did see your examples, your examples had nothing to do with what we're talking about.[/quote]I'm not discrediting you, and if you are calmer you'd see you're the one too much in a haste to read issues objectively because you're trying to dragoon all churches under the Catholic umbrella.

When omenuko conjectured that all churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church, I raised the issue that they were not - and replied accordingly. You never for one moment calmed down to understand what was being discussed before assuming what you're didn't read. Please take some time to breathe and look at what people are saying, follow their sequence instead of being too hasty to reply.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040086#msg4040086 date=1245195507]Assyrian? When did Assyrian come into the picture? Are you confusing Assyrian for Armenian or are you hoping I won't see the difference? We were never talking about the Assyrian Church, tpiah did not post the assyrian church, he posted the ARMENIAN CHURCH.
Don't chage the topic.[/quote]

Omenuko:
All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

[quote author=Omenuko link=topic=284000.msg4039719#msg4039719 date=1245188862]
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church.[/quote]

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040058#msg4040058 date=1245194961]How can a schism occur if they were not initally a part of the Catholic church. You can only have a schism when you were once together.

Definition of a schism

schism  /ˈsɪzəm, ˈskɪz-/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [siz-uhm, skiz-]  Show IPA
–noun 1. division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties.
2. the parties so formed.
3. Ecclesiastical. a. a formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference.
b. the state of a sect or body formed by such division.
c. the offense of causing or seeking to cause such a division.[/quote]You obviously are too driven to defend Catholicism rather than looking objectively at what people are posting. Please go back and see the samples I gave earlier:

   https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.32.html#msg4040047

Do those sound like they were "Catholic" before the schism?

The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic

toneyb:
Where did the idea of a canon begin from?

I'd like you to please start from there.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4040024#msg4040024 date=1245194330]Yes they are. Don't be so foolish to argue with a Catholic about her own church. They very much are Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Catholic_Church[/quote]I'm not arguing about what you assume to be your own Church; at least you need to be open to dialogue and see if you not missing out issues. Okay, here are just snapshots to address some misconceptions, among whcih are the ideas that "all churches were  part of the Catholic Church" before the broke away some 451 AD, etc., etc. We've repeatedly observed that is not the case, and here are a few things to consider:

[list]

"The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4499668.stm#iraq

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the apellation “Nestorian, after the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical, political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.
. . .

This ancient church claimed a first-century origin and developed almost wholly apart from the Greek and Roman churches. It did not embrace the heresy of which Nestorius was accused, though it endorsed his opposition to the Roman doctrines of purgatory and Mariolatry, especially her title as “Mother of God.” For at least twelve hundred years the church of the Easterns was noted for its missionary zeal, its high degree of lay participation, its superior educational standards and cultural contributions in less developed countries, and its fortitude in the face of persecution.

source:  Wikipedia

[/list]

Allta:

Very typical of women. No one is contending the most post on Nairaland with you, it's like one moment, you show a green side of you, another moment, you show a red side. That shows and tell a lot about you.

I have other important "matters" to attend to now, Miss/Mrs 6600 post-on-Nairaland, so I'll call it a day. I suggest you go out now and win some souls for Christ before the end of day today. YES, YOU CAN!

You should avoid interpolations that are not germane to your discussions - just a tip. But stay well and enjoy your evening.

Allta:
Peace out! and Thanks for answering most of my questions.

Anyday, much regards.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4039977#msg4039977 date=1245193636]The Egyptian Coptic Church, and the Armenian Church are Catholics. The Greek Orthodox were Catholic until the schism in 1054. Maybe you need to do your own research.[/quote]No, they're not.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4039968#msg4039968 date=1245193506]All writers of the Bible are Catholics.[/quote]That should make such Moses and all OT prophets into Catholics, no?

Allta:
I have not complain about anyone or attacked anyone, you started this whole business of firing darts. I've only been asking questions and submitting my opinions on matters as concerning the issue of Tithing. If by replying to posts on Nairaland shows that I have nothing to do, and nothing to show for the works of my hands, don't you think you're a front-runner in what you're saying I am - I've got posts on Nairaland under 100(Since 2005), you have over 6600 posts(Since 2007). Who is lazy and who is occupied here? Take my advice, spend more of those nairaland times evangelizing and winning more souls for Christ. At least, a soul a day for 100 posts on nairaland will deprive hell of some desperate souls, don't you think?

Actually, men who whinge and complain as you do are a terrible loss to our generation! But I'll address your worry. It is not how much or how few posts one has that you get to show you've been "busy", so complaining that your posts on Nairaland are under 100 is a lazy copout. It's not my fault if you can't manage your time and someone else has the fortune of doing well in that respects. There are also times that I've been away from Nairaland for quite a considerable time - you checked my profile, please check again and you'll see the huge gaps. In my more than 6000 posts, I have not been grumbling against any Christian over this 'tithe' issue and have gone several steps further to discourage such tendencies. It's not my fault that since 2005 you haven't risen to above 100 posts, is it? Or how does that make you a better person than those you've been complaining about on Malachi 3:9?

Allta:
I'm not complaining, only asking questions; and if you're so immature to answer, keep quite and let those who are answer.

I see you're feeling your own heat. . . it happens, so stop crying. You're not in for a discussion, let me know.

Allta:
And if you are tired of replying to posts on this thread, then keep quite and find something busy to do and let those who have the time reply.

More cries? What then is your point of asking more questions and pretending you're seeking "answers"?

Allta:
You don't have to keep saying I'm not informed and all that. It's a free world, It's your choice, it's your call!

Oh puhleease! Show some stuff! there's nothing holding you back from making informed inputs free from complaining.

Allta:
That's more like a Christlike attitude. Please be prepared to repeat yourself as much as necessary, I've got a learned spirit and I'm ready to learn and listen. I just have questions that needs to be answered that's all, you can't blame me for that, can you? There are so many figurative expressions in the Bible, the "ox" passage Paul quote is simply that.

Okay, that's welcome - I don't mind repeating myself if only just to be of benefit both ways. I never stop learning nor do I know it all; so, yes I'm sure there's also something to learn from yours: it works both ways.

Allta:
I find it extremely difficult to understand that these 6 points are figurative expressions. If it is, then this means that every of the Mosaic law could be seen figuratively. Even tithing itself could be figurative?

It ought not be so. 'Figurative' and 'principle' are not the same thing; the former tends to be often driven to passive analogies, while the latter takes a specfic case and leads out to a more general deduction.

But again: what effect does this have on 'every Mosaic law'? The Law itself is not given a linear legalistic interpretation. There's always a progression from a unit to a whole, and from a lower to a general wholeness. I'll give you a specific example:

(a) circumcision:
Even under the Law when it was enjoined (Lev. 12:3), it drew from what God had specifically ordained to Abraham prior to the Law (Gen. 17:14). However, the intrinsic meaning of circumcision is contained within the Law itself in Deut. 30:6 -

      And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed,
      to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou
      mayest live.

This again was what the prophets understood was the real meaning behind the call to circumcision: "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem" [Jer. 4:4]. But was this consistent even unto the times of the NT? Indeed, it was -

      "and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter" - Rom. 2:29

The same could be made for sabbath, the Passover, etc.

What about the tithe? Is it figurative? No. How do we know this? Because even after the resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the Church, the apostle Paul specifically pointed back to the OT Law when he spoke about supporting ministers of the Gospel:

       Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things
       live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar
       are partakers with the altar?  Even so hath the Lord ordained
       that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel
       ~~ [1 Cor. 9:13-14]

Just ask yourself some questions here:

      (a) was the apostle asking us Christians to do exactly what we read about in the OT?

      (b) who was he referring to in verse 13?  what did he mean by the altar and temple?

      (c) who were the people who ministered at the altar and temple - and where was he
           quoting?

You see, he was pointing back to the OT, not to ask us to become clones of those verses, but to derive their principles in supporting Christian ministers.

     

Allta:
But as I can see and understand:
1. Tithing is Objective, or not balanced on compulsory grounds. Whoever pays it, let them, and whoever doesn't, let them.
2. Eating Tithe is Objective, or not balanced as stated in Deut. Whoever is eating it, let them, and whoever isn't, let them.

That's okay - your view.

Allta:
A question you failed to touch on: Why didn't Christ or early Christians in NT pay tithe?

I don't know why they didn't pay tithe - just like I don't know why Paul didn't marry. The one thing I do know is that there is not  a single verse in all 66 books of the Bible that condemns tithe! NOT ONE. I know that many verses even before the NT actually disfavoured some of the practices of the OT Law; but isn't it amazing that NOT ONE VERSE specifically condemns tithes? Jesus actually taught others to tithe - we both know that; but did any of the apostles anywhere specifically condemn it? No. We know that in NT teaching, they were averse to such things as the Jewish rites of sabbath and outward circumcision - but they did not say a single word anywhere to condemn tithes - not one.

Omenuko:
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church. I do agree with you that there were some churches (though quite small in number) that developed apart from the 'Catholic Church'. As that may be the case, they practiced a faith that is very similar to that of the sister churches within the Catholic Church (e.g., Latin, Greek, Ethiopian, Syrian, etc.) and remained autonomous (so to speak). They maintained similar doctrinal beliefs and way of worship as the Catholic Church. Although all churches were independent, they all sought to maintain communion with one another and have sameness of faith.

In other instances, some of the churches that developed in isolation were forced to do so because of uncontrolled circumstances, such as religious persecution by the Romans and later the muslims, communication problems, wars, etc. The Chaldean Syrian Church of India that 'tpiah' mentioned may be one such example.

Thanks for putting it a bit more contextually. Although I agree with you in part, there is a line that still does not quite capture its essence: "All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church".

No, some of them were not "part of" the Catholic Church. They were not even fringe or minor. Although the sought to have close fellowship and work in unity and community, they still had their 'autonomy' (for want of a better word). It seems that it was due in part to the fact that Rome was trying to exert undue authority over others Churches that ultimately led to a schism.

toneyb:
This wasn't for me but let me jump in here, Of course catholic did not write the bible but they MADE the bible. The bible(compilation of accepted christian scriptures) was a sole idea of the catholic church.

I'm sorry you're singing another tune that has been recycled and retired. Indeed, Catholic scholarship was involved to some extent in the development of a canon, but it was not their canon that leads many making the assumption that "without them and what they did we would have no bible" - that's a bit OTT that is misplaced.

My answer was based on your previous post before you edited it. So let me consider a few things more you added.

Allta:
Thanks for giving lengthy examples, I'm impressed I must confess. But you've answered 50% of my question. Moreover, don't you think using Mal 3:10 and not Mal 3:9 in same Chapter is a bit bizzare? BTW I stated that Mal 3:9 is one of the most quoted verses in churches today, I didn't say it's the most quoted verse in churches today. You see yourself!? Even some unbelievers know John 3:16 is the most quoted verse in the bible.

The point is that Malachi 3:9 is NOT one of the most quoted - people often make this hooha and fail to show evidently that such is the case. That was why I didn't just want to say so, but went on to quote you precise examples. The second point was this: how do you compare denominations that are not even as large as the Anglican, Assemblies of God, and Catholic - who all use Malachi 3:10 instead of verse 9? That's why I hinted that you're talking only in terms of what you know (probably second hand propaganda). Please stop misleading yourself by being reactive - it's unnecessary and does not show that you're informed.

Allta:
I think we're both God secretary or PA, don't you think. At least one common thing is we both quote from the bible!

No sir - if that's your calling, to God be the glory. But me, I am definitely not His amanuensis (Romans 11:34 - "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?".

Allta:
For your info, I don't sit here and whinge. I have been blessed by this post have since try my best to liberate others who have been in my predicament. I don't need to be blowing my trumpet as to what work I do in my church and community. I don't need to blow my trumpet on how many souls I preach, teach and evangelise to, and how many people give their life to Christ in the community where I preach. My reward is indeed in heaven, that's why I said what will it benefit me to argue with you and loose my soul.

I know people who talk the way you do - all mouth and nothing to show for it. That is why you have time to complain against others. It's not hard to tell, because with service comes maturity - and maturity is demonstrated in what you tend to be polarised towards. If one spends too much time complaining against others, it's a sure sign he's busy at nothing.

Cheers.

Allta:
Thanks for giving lengthy examples, I'm impressed I must confess. But you've answered 50% of my question.

Okay, I withdraw my previous attitude. Please pardon my impatience (actually it was due to the fact that your questions have been addressed so many times in various threads - and I didn't feel like going into a long-drawn out argument all over again on the same issue). So now, let's discuss and not argue, yeah? Yep.

Allta:
There are plenty of people in the New testament who quoted the old testament, even Christ himself did. Don't mix or mock up points here, my point is not that Pastor shouldn't quote Mal 3 when they teach about tithe, my point is to cover all grounds.

That's okay, and no - I wasn't mocking up points. I agree - they should cover all grounds.

Allta:
And I sincerely believe if people must pay tithe, they should do it as commanded from the same old testament they are preaching from! What's so difficult in that? What's so difficult in eating ones' tithe?

Well, at the risk of repeating myself: the argument that tithers should do it as commanded from the OT is not balanced or objective. It is like saying that we must follow the "letter" and throw away the "principle". If one must always follow a rule of "do it as commanded from the same old testament", then what would you say in Paul's quoting two OT verses and using them to exhort about Christian giving? Should Christians look for "ox" in a literal manner? Or, in the case of quoting Exodus 16:18, should they look for gathering manner in a LITERAL sense when Paul quoted that verse in 2 Cor. 8:15?

Of course, Paul himself made it clear that he was not making a 'LITERAL' meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 when he quoted it in 1 Cor. 9:9-10; and it is obvious he was not making a literal meaning of gathering manna when he quoted Exodus 16:18 for Christian giving in 2 Cor. 8:15. You can see it does not follow that just because we quote an OT verse, then we should look for a LITERAL application. I guarantee you that if such were the case, there's no way you and I could be Christians in the new covenant! People could use any verse they feel led to and use the principle of that verse to exhort and expound upon their teaching in a healthy manner.

Allta:
I've agreed that tithing should be done willingly, but why can't people who pay tithe pay it as commanded in the Bible? At least you can't deny that Bible said to eat ones tithe with the needy, can you? To say that will be shallow indeed.

Why should one be a legalistic reader of the Bible? If you see legalism in those verses, then I can bear with you. But the point is that you're forcing a literal application on "tithes" using on Deuteronomy 14, which is quite unhealthy. The principle there was not about "self" - it was about OTHERS. Study it carefully. Often times many people stop at verse 26 - they fail to read the last two verses (28-29):

[list]At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.[/list]

Yes, tithers themselves were to rejoice in the blessing God had given them in their tithes - but more importantly than "self" is the blessing of looking towards others.

Allta:
Did Christ ever paid tithe? if you're going down the argumentative route, you better be prepared not to sleep tonight.

Okay, I'm awake - just for you. I already repeated that I'm not inclined to unnecessary arguments; but since you are keen on that, please be my guest.

Omenuko:
All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

That is precisely the problem. From all points considered, it does not follow that all churches were at any point "part of" the Catholic Church. If we revisit Church history, we find that some churches indeed grew almost indepently apart from the Catholic Church; and it was only when they convened to deliberate on doctrines that the schisms occured. Many people interprete these schisms as people leaving the Catholic Church to become other churches - that is not honest by any means.

I just thought to make the basics plain without yet pointing to specific examples, since it's not my desire for people to grow ill-feelings either ways. But yes, I'd be glad to offer examples where requested. Cheers.