₦airaland Forum

Hi TV01,

Many thanks for your keen reposte, and I shall try to be as concise.

TV01:
I'd like to discuss this further with you, but not in a manner that will become tedious. I'd like to put some questions to you, in some ways away from a purely doctrinal basis, more towards the practicality of giving.

Beautiful, and I've long awaited this!

TV01:
I must say, although you say your giving is not predicated on the law, your recourse to it in establishing your position is such that it may as well be. Neither is it properly established in my mind, by resort to shakey "inferences" from the NT, opaque "principles" from the OT and some as yet unclarified "mystery",, from I'm not exactly sure where?

The principle is easy to grasp, and I already said:
"There is a difference between living by the Old Covenant Law (OCL)
and learning from the Old Testament Scriptures (OTS)." (stated here)

One could learn from the Old Testament without living by the Law of Moses (Rom. 15:4).

TV01:
There are two dispensations clearly outlined in scripture "The Law of Moses" and the "The Grace & Truth of The Lord Jesus" (John 1:17). If you read or have been shown a third, surely it should be clear from scripture and not too difficult for you to show?

Actually, I see more than two dispensations:

● pre-Mosaic

● Mosaic

● post-Mosaic

(a) Pre-Mosaic speaks to us about the dispensations before the emergence of Israel as a nation, and covers such periods as under Noah, then Abraham, before Moses.

(b) Mosaic dispensation points to Judaism - something we all know Abraham was not a part of.

(c) Post-Mosaic ushers us to the present where the grace of God in Christ Jesus is offered to all the world - Jews and Gentiles.

What John 1:17 points out does not deny the dispensations before the Law, nor does it make the Mosaic Law override those that preceded it.

TV01:
If the basis is on the Melchizedekal, surely there must be inferences to be drawn from Melchizedek and not just the one action of Abraham, for which there are other understandings, which again - to my mind - are far superior to any you have postulated.

It would be a delight to see those superior postulations - we are all learning.

TV01:
If you are a 23% taxpayer and the deadline for tax returns is December 31st, with a a 1% penalty for every day that you are late and you subsequently end up paying 28% because you are 5 days late, does that make you a taxpayer at the rate of 28%? There's no way one of your obvious intelluct and repeatedly demonstrated scholarship should be making that kind of arguement.

When and if one ends up paying a tax of 28% by their own circumstances, what they pay is no less called Tax. It doesn't mean that they would pay 28% every year from thence on - and if your worry here is in respect of Leviticus 27:30-31 that I pointed out, please check it again and see that it is a conditional case - with the "IF" (And if a man. . ).

TV01:
Again, if one pays two yearly tithes of 10% and a three yearly one of 10% averaging approximately 23%, would you sincerely argue that on that basis a tithe is therefore 23%?

I think you're making a terrible mistake here. Rather than assume that was my premise, please see that I was merely responding by quoting the figures as given by tithe-opposers. If I made reference to a 40% tithe, it does not make me the same person as Russell Earl Kelly - for I would only be pointing out what those people have calculated by their own understanding to arrive at such a figure. If you want to discuss the various tithes under the Levitical system, I would most gladly join you and show you every exactitude of calculation we find there - perhaps then, you will come round seeing that tithes are not always a matter of 10% only.

TV01:
Having said that I'd to discuss further, hopefully by way of some concise answers in return for some brief answers. Of course I am more than willing to reciprocate. If you are amenable please advise by return, otherwise, I am happy to just follow.

Always willing to enage as ever - the fruit to be enjoyed both ways.

Many blessings.

@alpontiff,

It's great that you came off learning something from this. Sometimes, not everyone will read your intentions any other way than you had presented it. You did not ask a question (Is God an atheist?), rather you stated your own conclusion (God IS an Atheist) even before you gave others the opportunity to weigh in on the matter! When you came back, your fingers were directly accusative (if your God is not an atheist. . ) - one wonders in all these if you were seeking to dialogue or had slammed the door in other people's faces before hearing them out.

MALAMA:
The word 'TITHE' has a catholic meaning and it is 'a tenth'. Any variance to this definition is a personal opinion and should be labelled as such. If one pays 11% it is no longer called 'tithe' and it should be clearly stated as 11%.

My dear, I am sorry to disappoint you deeply. Refer to just the case of Leviticus 27:30-31 --

           "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land,
            or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD.

            And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes,
            he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof"

    Now, a casual mental maths quickly tells us that "fifth part" is 20%, not so? Yes, it is.

    Then you add that 20% to the tithes (10%), does that still remain as 10%? No, it does not!

    Now, if a man takes the value of 20% added to 10% and present it to the priest back then,
    what shall he say to the priest? I guess you are asking him to say, "Uhm, I don't know what
    happened, but here is my 12% anyways!!" Since 12% is no longer 10%, are you
    not clearly advocating that such a person should indeed not call his tithes by that term -
    TITHES?

You see, before you make this assumption, go through Scripture carefully. Even if I don't rest my case for tithing upon the Law, you are absolutely wrong to advocate that Leviticus 27:31 is no longer a tithe - whereas, it IS called a tithe even though a fifth part (20%) is added to it to bring his tithes above 10%! When we read Encyclopedias and Bible Dictionaries, let us understand something - they are good; but they can never take the place of the Word of God.

MALAMA:
Since u pay tithes (though u said not necessarily 10%), Pilgrim , it would be nice if you said that you do so based on your Personal Opinions not under the new covenant of Jesus because this new covenant that we are under does not obligate us to do so.

Actually, holding on to only a narrow view of the meaning of tithes is your personal opinion and not what the Word teaches. I have not sought to make my persuasions the satndard for anyone - and if a man gives less than 10% or more than 23.3%, to God be all the glory - they do so on their own inner convictions. Many people are too scared to call it "TITHES", because they (probably) have been exposed to the ridicule of clever minds who argue endlessly against tithes and call it every other name under the sun. As for me, I fear nothing in this matter, and as far as the Bible teaches what I have shared above, it is not my worry whatever anyone else thinks.

MALAMA:
Law and grace do not go hand-in-hand. What we have now is giving from a cheerful heart ,not out of compulsion.

This is where you make another BIG mistake. Go back to the OT and see that when the commandment was given to take tithes, everyone came and obeyed with a CHEERFUL heart. So what is the difference now between a cheerful heart in the OT and a cheerful heart in the NT? Besides, my position through has been consistently saying that it is not by compulsion - and let me remind you to the fact once again:
                 ____________________________________________________________

                  'I don't think you have noticed how many people ackowledge that tithes
                  have nothing to do with the idea of ~

                  DEMAND,
                            COERSION,
                            COMPULSION,
                            FORCE,
                            CAJOLING,
                            MANIPULATION,
                            INDOCTRINATION,

                            . . . or any other ONOMATOMANIA!!
                 ____________________________________________________________

                 I said it since and repeated it several times. . .

                (1) here

                (2) and again

                (3) and here!


My dear MALAMA, "Grace" did not originate from the NT - back in the OT we find several men of God who knew and enjoyed the grace of God, from Noah (Genesis 6:8), to Lot (Gen. 19:19), to Moses (Exo. 33:12 & 17) and through to the remnant of the captivity of Israel (Ezra 9:8). The problem with us is that we have allowed the world to define Christianity for us, and we are making the huge mistake of perpetuating their erratum.

MALAMA:
Whatever is being given does not necessarily have to be money, it can be time,clothes food etc, but tithes was specifically agricultural products. No variance in meaning.

I will come back after allowing you guys check your thoughts about this traditional thinking. In all honesty, if you give "offerings" in church, have you given food and clothes and called that "offering"? Talk is cheap - we can sit behind our houses and argue so much about this matter - and for all that, it happens many times that we are unable to translate our arguments to reality! I acknowledge the fact that people smetime have "fine" points - but of what use is it arguing so much about what we have no answers to, and then make a few hurried summaries which are hardly practical in the face of reality?

Shalom.

@MALAMA,

Thank you again for your simple outlines. I hope that my reposte would be as effective as you would anticipate. Please note also the words I highlighted in quoting yours - just so you can see where I stand on these matters.

MALAMA:
@ Pilgrim 1,

Acts 15:1-29 talks about the issue of the Mosaic Law being brought into the new covenant. The proponents of the Law wanted circumscion and obedience to the Law of Moses to be part of the new covenant especially on the Gentiles ( you and I). This was the first ecumenical council,and Peter dealt with the issue. He recognised that even they themselves, the Jews ,could not keep the Law,also that God's love had extended to the Gentiles and He didn't require us to keep the Law. Everything under the Mosaic Law has been nailed to the cross. If we decide on our own to tithe, we should then decide to obey other parts of the Law like (a) not going into the congregation of the children of God while in one's period (b) not eating seafood without scales (c) not wearing clothing of mixed materials (d) all the daily ,sin and all-what-nought offerings should continue amongst a host of others. Why keep a part of the Law and not the rest?

Lol, I especially like the last question which I have highlighted thus:
"Why keep a part of the Law and not the rest?"

My simple answer is another question:

"WHERE have I ever stated that my tithing is based on the Law?"

The moment you find that answer, that is when you will come to see what exactly I have been saying. For emphasis sake, let me state it yet again:

● my persuasions to tithe are not based on the Levitical rites and ceremonies

● my persuasions to tithe are not based on the Law of Moses

● my persuasions to tithe are not predicated on fulfilling any part of Judaism

● my persuasions to tithe are not because of the LAW

● people, please, please and please, look away from the Levitical priesthood
if you want to talk about tithing as a Christian!

You see the mistake many people make - and I have lost count of how many times I have repeated this matter so often that my fingers are aching in that regard. Recently, I had to repeat myself again about that matter yet again, where I outlined the mistake that so many people make. Let me repeat them once again:

______________________________________________________________

However, there are a few reasons why my position differs from theirs:

[size=14pt] ● their premise is the Levitical priesthood; whereas -
my premise is the priesthood of Melchizedek[/size]

● they see the Melchizedek case as a pagan sacandal;
whereas, I see it as a matter of faith

[size=14pt] ● they start out lashing against tithes from the Law;
whereas, I start outside the Law every single time[/size]

● all their fiery disdain against tithes are based on Judaism;
whereas, I don't justify tithes on Jewish rites;

● they only see the old covenant of the Levitical order;
whereas, I look at the mystery of the new covenant

● while they legislate for God to condemn tithes;
I challenge them to show where God ever once condemned tithes
(remarkable that they have never answered that question!)

● they often equate tithes to such issues as "circumcision";
whereas, I have never once made that equation
or confused one for the other!

● they often are too quick to condemn others who tithe;
whereas, I have consistently called for reason and balance

● often, they try to make tithes look like a matter of justification and salvation;
whereas, I have never done so either from the OT or NT!
______________________________________________________________

In one word, when people start out from the LAW of Moses, just be sure they will confuse issues more for themselves! For those who are too assuming about the Mosaic Law and disregard it, I have said something to that effect as well - they should also be ready to drop some of the Christian doctrines which they believe in and practise in Church that were derived directly from the Law of Moses! Yes, just incase you may not have remembered, there are Christian doctrines and practices derived directly from the Law of Moses! Once you see that point, it will bring you back to very carefully study the implications of the divine principles in the Law for people under the new covenant! I was not trying ever to mix Judaism into Christianity, and I hope that this issue will now become clearer to us now.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Your answer was very clear, maybe even too clear and don't worry I did not make any mistake of misrepresenting your position.
I was only pointing out the apparent discord in your tithe justification, to wit:

While you say it is not a tenth (10%) of earnings, you still said your persuasion is not based on the law but on Abraham's giving of a tenth (10%) of his war booty to Melchizedec.

I have given you the opportunity throughout today to see the glaring contortion that resonates throughout all your submissions on this thread but you seem not to be able to get it. Hopefully you may get it now.

Okey-dokes! I even thought you had a huge problem that was worrying you for which I could edit. Kai! E no good to carry legalism for mind O!

Let me help you brother. Throughout from the very onset, I have maintained two things in this regard:

(a) While others may see tithe as only 10% and nothing more or less than that, I have maintained that IMO tithe is not only 10% and the figures vary in Scripture. Even those who favour tithes have gracefully shared with me that tithe is nothing other than 10%, and I acknowledged their persuasions on that note - afterall, there has been a consistency that this issue in our lives is not a compulsion where my own persuasions should be the standard and only prescription for anyone else. To this end, I have demonstrated the case of 1% (from Nehemiah 10:38); a 20% added to the tithe that was to be redeemed; as well noted that even among opposers to tithe, the figures have been anywhere from 10% to 23.3% to even 40%.

       Question. Look at the various figures below:

           . . . 1%,

           . . . 10%,

           . . . 12%  (ie., a fifth added to tithes that are redeemable, Lev. 27:30-31)

           . . . 23.3%,

           . . . 40%

       Now, which one of all those figures is properly called tithes?

If you choose only 10%, what do you then call the other figures, dear anonimi? I shall wait for your answer, and then give you some other figures straight from Scripture which your own adulators have all acknowledged and yet call those various figures TITHES!


(b) Following the above, I still maintain that tithes are not only a matter of one's income - as in the case of Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek, it is open to various interpretations which some have declined as saying it was income to the patriarch. No worries; but even so, while pointing out that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, I also noted that it was not based on a command or rigid law to do so. There was no legislation asking the patriarch to dole out exactly 10% of everything in precise slice or exactitude of figures. This is why I started early to warn that those who set their minds on a rigid figure will run into problems sooner than later.


(c) I still maintain my position that tithes should not be a matter of rigid figures, but of divine principles. If you have been careful to follow my inputs on this, you certainly would not have missed where I clearly have repeatedly stated that it was by "principle" and not by exactitudes of calculations. Some may decide to give more or less instead of exactly 10% - others may feel led to give in that same manner, but are too scared to call it "tithes" (preferring other terms not found in the NT). I don't have a problem with all those - the only issue for such arguments is that those who stay on a rigid command in everything will miss the essential feature of what tithes are pointing to (which is what I was waiting all along to demonstrate, though I mentioned it earlier).

Bottomline is that -
   ● I give my tithes (which is not 10%),
   ● following the principle of Abraham's faith,
   ● recognizing the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek
   ● without fear, cajoling, manipulation, or inveigling,
   ● not to fulfill any part of Judaism
   ● not seeking to be more righteous thereby
   ● and have been truly blessed extra-ordinarily in doing so.

I'm sorry to note that my position somewhat distressed or confused you all the more - I never intended it so to be. However, it is not an exactitude of figures in percentages that is paramount in tithes - rather, it is what tithes essentially mean that Scripture presents before us that matters more. problem is that people have taken the secondary matters and made them the primary matters - and that is why they cannot see what they are confusing.

If there are fresh questions, I would be very glad to attend them.

Many blessings.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Your writings is basically that you are still saying your tithe is not a tenth (10%)  of your income, isn't it whether na legalistically speaking abi na faithfully speaking?

Answer and reminder:[list][list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2976848#msg2976848 date=1224674554]I give a tithe - but it is not 10%. Does that help?[/quote][/list][/list]

Was that not clear enough when I stated it?

anonimi:
If u no wan scare persin na wetin be all this tori wey you dey yarn for above dia
Make you try more, more abeg.

Lol, u no need to shake - I just don't like repeating mysef endlessly - especially when someone is making the mistake of misrepresenting my position.

Hugs, dear carmelily. . I understand just a bit of where you're coming from (incidentally, I know someone who has been terribly hurt recently and I'm lost for words to say to comfort her even though she's a very dear friend). Enjoy.

alpontif:
-to make my point clear i am not quastioning the existence of God,i am merely stating a fact.

If you're merely stating a fact by not questioning the existence of God, where do we put your statement of making God an "atheist"?

alpontif:
if your God is not an atheist,what god does he believe in ?,what god does he serve?

Where's your God? Instead of pointing accusing fingers at others, why don't you say something about your own and let us read - afterall, you were not questioning the existence of God, abi?

Chrisbenogor:
but pilgrim some things were thief and put for inside bible na?

Me, I no be your lawyer to decide that case!
But as for Christmas and whatever go make you go polish your shoe, na halleluyah I go dey sing!

carmelily:
@pilgrim

He IS a priest. I am 100% sure about that. And we've had about a million discussions about RCC doctrine and all that.

In any case i think you need to read the posts here more closely to know where i stand about "catholic" "protestant" etc. Funny when you say "our protestant". I definitely am not "protestant". And any exasperated person who has gone through RCC dogma would surely wonder if they are indeed, salvable. Like someone said you like saying on another thread, "sorry", but i stand by my comments.

@carmelily,

Again, I say sorry. And thank you at the same time for pointing out your persuasions - I'm not going to legislate for the man who claims to be a priest, as I have no way of ascertaining who exactly he is or what he has been saying.

That said, whatever postures we assume ("we", whether Christian or not), I think it is not quite helpful to regard others as standing on an "if" as regards salvation. Again, it is not in my power to change them, and though everyone is entitled to their opinions, we could hope for the best for others. Should we doubt them while at the same time hoping the best for them - that indeed would be somewhat difficult for others to read as to what our own condition is.

Cheers.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
And your point is- it cannot be more than 10%?
Or can it be more than 10% as per the authors you recently quoted?

I don't think you have been following my position since we started discussing this issue. Perhaps you got disenchanted ("perhaps", I said) and just simply stopped reading - which is okay, if that is the case. But let me bring some few things to your attention once again after repeating myself endlessly:

1. Let it be on record: pilgrim.1 is NOT the one quoting such authors who have been antagonistic to tithes. In my several repostes, I referred to such authors only when replying to other posts which have quoted such authors - as in these two examples: here and here.

2. To assume that I was the one quoting those authors is to confuse me for someone else and belie my position with a most queer canard. I'm not the one quoting them, and I have demonstrated that I don't agree with their excuses for opposing tithes - some of which I have pointed out already in recent times (here and here).

3. If at all I had been making the mistake of quoting those authors to buttress any view about my position, I would have been contradicting myself most severely - because it would mean that I was making their own mistake and decorating my position with their fancies. However, there are a few reasons why my position differs from theirs:

        ● their premise is the Levitical priesthood; whereas -
           my premise is the priesthood of Melchizedek

        ● they see the Melchizedek case as a pagan sacandal;
           whereas, I see it as a matter of faith

        ● they start out lashing against tithes from the Law;
           whereas, I start outside the Law every single time

        ● all their fiery disdain against tithes are based on Judaism;
           whereas, I don't justify tithes on Jewish rites;

        ● they only see the old covenant of the Levitical order;
           whereas, I look at the mystery of the new covenant

        ● while they legislate for God to condemn tithes;
           I challenge them to show where God ever once condemned tithes
           (remarkable that they have never answered that question!)

        ● they often equate tithes to such issues as "circumcision";
           whereas, I have never once made that equation
           or confused one for the other!

        ● they often are too quick to condemn others who tithe;
           whereas, I have consistently called for reason and balance

        ● often, they try to make tithes look like a matter of justification and salvation;
           whereas, I have never done so either from the OT or NT!

Dear anonimi, when you engage pilgrim.1 in very intricate matters like this, please tread softly - just an advice. Once early in my Christian life, I also condemned tithes, ridiculed it, and gave several excuses why they could not be for the Christian. However, a change of heart came upon me and I know where I'm coming from, where I have been, how deeply these matters have been researched, and I know who I am today in Christ. There is NOTHING that any opposer of tithe is going to say today that I have not read, heard, seen, perused, queried, or synthesiszed in a digestible form to know where they stand.

If I wanted to, I could serve you 211 (that's not a typo - it's 211) more points (a total of 220 points) where I differ radically from the arguments of antagonists on this matter. I could show you another 45 points of the bitter things they have said against Christ, against tithers and even contrary to God Himself. I don't want to scare any Christian believer, that is why I am trying to be sensible here and not post such matters (other than the one where Yomisays derived his argument from the opposer that condemned tithers to Hell using Galatians 5:4).

Lol, I'm not trying to bluff here. No. The point is that (while I'm not pointing this at you), pilgrim.1 is not a softball on anybody's tuff who can be so bitterly driven with their legalistic sanctimony - not even when they claim a Ph.D with a "Christian" badge.

anonimi:
Me i no dey get grouse oh, my dear sister in the Lord! If you dey look for am, abeg make you go front small maybe you go fit find am for dia.

Hehe, brotherly. . just helep me point out wetin you wan make I edit - fiam! I go comply pronto.

anonimi:
I was only reiterating what all your posts has been about so that you may re-affirm them or not. You may still wish to do so or we accept your opinion as currently summed up.

I'm not a rigid discussant - where you have anything to convince me on the questions I have asked, it would be such a delight. O ka ré!

Lol @huxley,

My exams are in series - part of them them are in regular school programmes, others are external exams I sit to improve my career prospects. Anyhow, I'm doing good.

huxley:
Am not worried one bit by the pagan cults. I just enjoy reading up history and the origins of Christianity. Very fascinating. If you haven't yet, take a look at the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It will amaze you just how similar that religion is with Judeo-Christianity.

Hehe, to be honest with you, I have not read that book from back-to-back cover and don't think it is one of the texts I would like to waste time on - not for any disaffection; but because there are other texts where I can find an unbiased approach to the history of religious symbolisms.

That one may read issues that are "similar" does not make the Biblical faith a plagiarism of those rites. There are other symbolisms in other religions that one may read about - many of them also using precise Biblical expressions, and I have outlined a few of these before. Just mention any suggestion that they were plagiarized from the Bible, and you will find such speed with which their adherents will come here breathing down our necks. Want to try an experiment to verify this fact? Okey-dokes. . . here again: 

      Expressions derived from* Christian terms for Jesus: the Son of God --

                ↙    The Bahá'í Faith - also refer to Jesus as the Son of God

                ↙   The Grail Message - also refer to Jesus as the Son of God


      Expressions derived from* Christian terms for God: the Trinity --

                 ↙    The Bahá'í Faith - also speaks of God as a Trinity

                 ↙    The Grail Message - also speak of God as a Trinity


Yet, in all of this, we understand that these terms, although all similar, are not to be confused for precisely the same way that Christianity speaks of them. Who plagiarised what from who? Just wait a mo. . . you go soon see them breathe in here sharp-sharp!


So, my dear huxley. . . the charge of "plagiarism" against Christianity from the rites of Egyptian passages is unfounded. At best, there are people who force that meaning into these readings - and in many other places, objective scholarship has demonstrated the fact that Christianity did not plagiarize these tenets.

Gamine:
How can a Tithe be more than 10%

Please ask the holders of Ph.Ds who have been hooting against tithes and calculated it to 40%. I am waiting for them to come on board and tell us where to begin to bleach their sanctimony.

anonimi:
I am surprised that a Bible scholar as erudite as yourself

Many thanks for the accolades - they are unnecessary here.

anonimi:
and who claims to be persuaded to tithe not by law but by Abraham-Melchizedec text will post what you just posted above.

Please point out what your grouse with my statements are - then we can take it from there.

anonimi:
Maybe you want to re-read and then edit.

They stand as is, until then.

anonimi:
Hopefully by then JJ would have responded to my question unambiguously as well.

Okay, please yourself as and whenever.

Cheers.

calebreal:
I need really need help in programming am a fresher in line and am finding it difficuit and also tired of reading please can anyone put me through and will be very gratefull

Could guys at the Programming section be of more help?

anonimi:
You do not give a tenth (10%) of your earnings so it cannot be tithe.
How about that?

Why can it not be tithe - just because you do not see 10% as the exact figure?

I guess then that what Russell E. Kelly Ph.D and his folks describe as 23.3% and 40% are not tithe then? If they are, where do you stand in these matters?

You could give us your answers now regardless of whether JJYOU comes on board now or later.

huxley:
Are there any core Christian tenets that were not plagiarised from the pagan cults of the Roman empire at the time? If there are, I would like to know.

If the pagan cults of the Roman empire seems to be your worry, you could easily focus on them. To leave them and be constantly disturbed about Christianity is a testimony already that you just don't know where to draw the line.

How are you anyway?

carmelily:
And this is what he has to say about his frequent sexual exploits:

An Rcc priest on the move May God save the RCC. if they are salvable!

Hmm, let us understand that not everyone making a claim to being a priest is actually one. Some are actually internet trawlers just posing as "priests", and they do this so well that anyone might be easily taken in by them.

Second, God is able to save the worst of people - and it is not only people within the Catholic system that stand in need of this mercy we all seek and sing about. "Salvable"? Let's look outside the Catholic systen for a moment and focus on our "Protestant" testimony - are we any better than those we sometimes point fingers at? I am humbled and blessed by a Nigerian proverb someone shared with me recently - "when we point accusing fingers at others, remember that 3 longer fingers are pointing directly back at us - who knows where the thumb is pointing to!" I believe that God's mercy is open to all - we can be open to this fact and desire that all men come to His saving grace, regardless of what they might have been.

Just my observations. Cheers.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim
While you are at it kindly remember to explain the difference between offerings and the tithes you pay.

Lol, @Kunle. . I did not ignore your question/request. Will deal pronto afterwards.

anonimi:
In short you do not pay a tenth (10%) of your earings to your church as tithe, right?
Or maybe you do pay a tenth?

I give a tithe - but it is not 10%. Does that help?

KunleOshob:
Imagine some pastors asking you to give Jesus something for his birthday

I'm quite saddened to actually hear some ministers fall prey to such mentality. Very, very sad indeed. However, don't be too strung up on "origins" of this and that - seeking an understanding of the background of some issues is good sometimes; but it doesn't help to make such backgrounds the overriding issue in what affects our faith. This is why some people even as Christians have become too driven to draw a parallel their faith and paganism! What they fail to understand is that they end up hurting themselves even more.

carmelily:
@topic

To tithe or not to tithe? very easy! Did Jesus tithe?

Very easy: did Jesus condemn tithes?

@anonimi,

Edited.

anonimi:
I have noted your answer to my question above. You may wish to define what you pay as tithe.

Lol, anonimi. .  let me help you here: I would not tell you precisely how much in a specific figure by percentage (%) I tithe.

I have my reasons for declining at this moment to tell you a specific figure. Here they are:

(1) I am a passionate and unrepentant opposer of legalism in the Christian testimony. It has come to my notice that while opposers of tithes are asking too many questions, they will most likely not answer questions themselves. There are some questions I have asked, no opposer to tithe has been able to give me a precise and honest answer thereto - but while we note the genial atmosphere to discussing issues, it makes me wonder how this restlessness too often shows up in the books written by non-tithers.

(2) Secondly, while they will zero-in on what tithers give and how many percentages it amounts to, these same opposers will never tell you publicly what they themselves will give in their own churches. They will tersely remark: "I just give - it doesn't matter - it is by grace - it is tied t a need", etc.

(3) Following (1) above, it makes sense that we look at the Word and help ourslves to stick to what it teaches. Not at any time in either the OT or NT did God ever once condemn tithes. As such, in the NT, the principle of my tithing is based on what God says:

       ●  to set something aside in proportion to how I have been blessed
           (1 Cor. 16:2, AMP)

       ●  to give as I have purposed in my own heart (2 Cor. 9:7)

       ●  there upon, I am not to let a divine transaction of this nature to be
           publicly sounded like a trumpet - it fosters pride (cf. Matt. 6:1-3); in other
           words, it is a discreet transaction between each believer and God.

I wonder why non-tithers would make so much noise about how much tithers give in their churches, and yet tithers are not asking non-tithers to account for how much is their "just give" transactions.

anonimi:
I will wait for the response of sleekymag and JJ before I give a concise and specific reply.

I think you could give your response now - seeing that among those that tithe, two summary answers have been proffered.

Cheers.

Here's another view that celebrates Christmas:

    Conclusion:

         ●  It is Christian to celebrate the Lord's birth.
         ●  To celebrate Christmas on December 25 is not pagan,
             as Christians are not worshiping a pagan deity.
         ●  The days of the week are all named after pagan deities,
             but that does not make the day pagan.
         ●  The whole world rejoices and sings, "Oh little town of Bethlehem"
             and "Christ the new born King is born". There is no excuse for not
             celebrating Christ's birth.

          source: Truth or Fable.


         _____________________________________________________________


Okay, I remember having read something like David Padfield's thoughts and reasons for not joining in the celebrations of Christmas. Let me recall one of his reasons why he would not like to celebrate Christmas:
[list][list]

Nearly everyone remembers reading about the appearance of an angel to the shepherds. In Luke 2:8 we read, "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night." This rules out the birth of Christ as a winter event. "According to this statement, Jesus cannot have been born in December, in the middle of the rainy season, as has been since the fourth century supposed.

[/list][/list]

Even when David Padfield quotes commentaries from Adam Clarke in support of an October date, he failed to realize that Clarke's commentary worked against his own argument! Why? Because Clarke noted that "it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the twenty-fifth of December, when no flocks were out in the fields." (Adam Clarke's Commentary, p. 857)." What did Mr. Padfield hope to achieve by basing his convictions against Christmas on "presumptive argument"?!?

Well, for anyone still arguing about the impossibility of sheep in winter, please understand that this has been practised among shepherds around the world! Time and space would fail me to go through every place where this has happened; but a few will be effective to the case:

    https://www.coldframe.com/Images/2002/Jan-Mch/four-sheep.jpg

    https://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif

    https://www.westernfolklife.org/weblogs/artists/sharono/archives_10/2006/sheep%20on%20winter%20trail.JPG

    https://www.orkneypics.com/webpage/image/162/a162011.jpg

    https://www.orkneypics.com/webpage/image/062/a062697.jpg

    https://www.orkneypics.com/webpage/image/061/a061151.jpg

    https://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_britain0s_white_christmas/img/1.jpg


    https://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_britain0s_white_christmas/img/4.jpg
       . . . and, of course, I enjoy winter too!

    Oh c'mon! You really don't expect me to show my face up there, did you?!?


Don't make yourselves the victims of needless arguments. Just enjoy the wonderful gift of God - Jesus Christ the Redeemer! Shalom.

[quote author=A-town link=topic=186374.msg2976493#msg2976493 date=1224669674]Did you skip summary writing in school?[/quote]Hi @A-town, there's really no need to get touchy (as Gamine has noted). I think posting the whole body of the original writer's (David Padfield) thoughts is in order and saves us the time of going to another webpage to read it all through.

Hi anonimi,

Let me answer your question first, and then explain my answers.

anonimi:
pilgrim.1, sleekymag & JJ,

Is your tithe no longer, specifically, a tenth (10%) of your earnings?

Answers:

   1. My tithes are not based on the Levitical rites.

   2. My tithes are not specifically a tenth (10%) of my earnings.

   3. Besides my tithes, there are other occasions I also give consistently


Explanations:

   1. I have said numerous times that my tithes are not a matter of fulfilling the Levitical rites
       - in other words, they are not based on any obligation to fulfill Judaism.

   2. I have said numerous times that tithes are not always a matter of 10%
       - for in the OT, we find that tithes are calculated in various percentages,
         and non-tithers who have tried to argue this matter are themselves
         giving us different figures between 1%, 10%, 23.3%
         and even 40% in total value (as Russell Kelly once said). So then,
         if non-tithers are inconsistent between all these figures and not just 10%
         then why is it that the spotlight should always be on tithers to explain
         what non-tithers have themselves not been able to clarify?

   3. Anyone who tithes is a matter of their own choice to do so as they have
         purposed in their hearts for themselves and from their own pockets.
         We do not ask those who are non-tithers or opposed to tithing to
         give us anything from their pockets for our tithes.

I hope these few answers would help? Cheers.

@MALAMA,

MALAMA:
Pilgrim,
thanx dear.I've been having a great time this evening. Why were you bothered about the phrase 'serpentine meandering'? It was as if I touched a nerve there but I don't recall refering to a particular person. I said 'some posts' which includes those for and against tithes . You also took my itemised points personally. Funny,they were not addressed to you in particular. They were my conclusions from all the posts.

Were you actually hoping you would touch a nerve in me? Lol, actually, such matters are of little consequence to me; just felt that since I don't remember you and I discussing on this before, it was not ideal to read you weigh in by recourse to such lingo. the thread has suffered the heat of such already, and it's always been my aim to tone down such expressions on either side.

MALAMA:
You may not do a verse-by-verse exegesis. You also may not go through the whole chapter,just restrict yourself to the first 29 verses and let me know what you think about them. Take note of the highlighted parts.

I think 29 verses in that chapter is still not actually directing a particular concern. Even if I had to deal with just the highlighted verses, it's still not clear what you're pointing to, and I would not like to run the risk of trailing off the opposite direction of what you're seeking.

MALAMA:
What disturbs us non-tithers (and Huxley if I may add) about tithing in the church is that it is non-scriptural for us christians, it has been used to put 'fear' into us (Mal 3:10) and it isn't even practiced the way it was meant to be if truly christians have to tithe.

Well, I don't think it should be a worry to huxley, since he is neither Christian nor Jew.

And as regards the "fear" from Malachi 3:10, I already addressed that issue some time earlier (in post #1356 and post #1357), and referred to it in summary.

Bottomline is that for many of us who tithe, we do so without any fear and no one is forcing it out of our hands. Whether it is done this way or that, is open to various interpretations - whether for or against.

MALAMA:
Let's go back to Acts 15: 1-29.

I would like to do so as soon as I know what particular concerns you're hoping to address.

Regards.

@MALAMA,

MALAMA:
Pilgrim, this is for you. Could you please enlighten us on the book of Acts Chapter 15? Here it is :

What actually is your query in that chapter? Are you expecting me to make a verse-by-verse exegesis of the whole chapterof Acts 15? I don't think you would be happy to do so yourself - so please point out what precisely you would like me to address, and then I would oblige you.

Warmest regards.

@MALAMA,

I trust you're having a very good evening?

Actually, I was going to graciously take a leave from this thread and play around on some other subject, because I feel that I've exhausted this subject and no fresh questions were forth coming. . until then, I was hoping that only fresh questions would bring me in once again - but yours actually have been addressed. Shall I repeat myself yet again? No worries.

MALAMA:
(a) definitions have been altered from their original intentions e.g. tithes of all the land = agricultural produce, but has a new meaning in modern times which is MONEY

Please enlarge your heart and don't fall victim of the same slant where legalists often set their eyes alone on the Levitical system. It turns out that every single time people try to discuss the subject of tithes, they see nothing beyond the Levitical system - and yet for all that, they never are able to see what exactly the Word teaches before they accuse others of being myopic! If I were you, I would not be so assuming before alleging statements as above.

MALAMA:
(b) the context and purpose of tithes which were clearly stated in the Law is not what it is today as practiced in the church

See what I mean? MALAMA, you have made the biggest mistake of your life on this subject - and this makes me wonder if indeed you have actually been following this thread. The same problem as others found themselves is what you have made yourself here - starting on the LAW - you won't get very far on that! Trust me.

MALAMA:
(c) we christians have not been studying our bibles well and prefer to hear from the pulpit (some of the people on the pulpit are either ignorant or mischievious )

Okay - ignorant or mischievious is not quite an intelligent way to enter a discussion though.

MALAMA:
(d) we christians do not know where Judaism ends and where Christianity begins

Okay O. . I hear. I'm a Christian and I think I know precisely where to draw the line - and I have shared precisely on that point MANY TIMES!

MALAMA:
(e) some of us christians are not students of history,hence do not see the need to research the origins of things and understand why some things were put in the bible

No worries - when you share we shall all benefit, abi?

MALAMA:
(f) some of us christians are afraid that if they don't tithe, they will not be blessed (some even equate blessings with money),hence they need to 'feed' God every Sunday or whatever day the tithe bag/tray/envelope is passed around so that He won't be mad at them and withdraw His blessings

"Some of us Christians" - if that is how you describe that set of thinkers wrapped with fear and the "need to 'feed' God", please count me out. I have no worries for those who feel themselves having such a need to do so. I wonder why people who discuss this subject have to make a very poor case for themselves when they start out like this - this just simply tells me that such thinkers don't get very far before they begin to wear themselves out on what they propose. I don't recommend that you adopt that approach, MALAMA.

MALAMA:
While I was going through all the posts and enjoying the 'serpentine meandering' (to borrow someone's phrase here in describing such wuru-wuru to the point) of some posts, I noticed that the question of tithes or no-tithing had been addressed before the writer of Hebrews (Paul or maybe me). The issue had been addressed while the church was being 'set up'.

Do you have to resort to such lingo? Why this slant about "serpentine meandering"? The thing I can't understand with such an attitude here is that even when nobody is forcing you guys to tithe by any means, you cannot even afford to exhibit the grace to address issues without recourse to such emotional expressions. I can safely say that there is something really disturbing the heart of non-tithers that they often start out with such slurs - what in the world is disturbing you guys? If it is not this lifestyle of slurring others with such lingo, then your brethren will condemn tithers to HELL! What really is at the root of such a disaffection?

Can we afford to discuss without starting out with such an attitude? Is that how to express godliness -even when you don't agree with others? I hope we can afford to discuss and not resort to such an adventure?

Cheers.

@Chris,

Chrisbenogor:
David you know by now me I give no excuses at all, make we no derail this thread but Moses, Joshua and their goons did worse that this, it should not turn the stomach of any christian.

I sometimes wonder at the way you guys reason. Make "we no derail this thread but. . " Lol, somehow along the line, there must be some churning somewhere that makes people uncomfotable to look at atheistic murders, no?

Okay, make we no derail the thread - and no "but" about it.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
My dear, allow me to digress a bit, I am not really in the habit of quote and destroy personally I think it takes away the general message the person is trying to convey to me and if I get hung up that the person made a typo then I miss the whole issue totally.
For someone who does not like things taken out of context and things misinterpreted I think you do a fair share of misrepresenting views, I did not study English language, was never a super student at it but I try to bring my fair share to the table in fact I have repeatedly said I am at awe with your diction but what I try to convey to you is a whole Idea and if you take apart my statements for the sake of bringing them down then you miss the whole issue.

I think you missed the whole point. Actually. It's not my style to quote and destroy, but if you feel that way my apologies. As in my reply to huxley's, I noted the typo - we all have them; so I'll just leave it at that.

Chrisbenogor:
Let me point the first thing out to you, I said
I meant in not so many words that your replydid not hold water because the analogy did make a lot of sense, the issue at hand was the syntax and which is reflected in the statement

Chris dear, that analogy was not mine - so why would I be wasting time "defending" what was not mine in the first place? if you keep reading my terse reply to that as a "defence", you make more of an issue where there is none - and that's why the problem is endless.

Chrisbenogor:
it is the syntax of the sentence in this particular case we are talking about.
I hope that settles that.

Okay, if you say so.

Chrisbenogor:
Now next were the words
which I used while again trying to drive home a general idea, what you managed to miss( intentionally or not ) were the words that followed it, and this is why I tried to point out that you twisted those words and could easily confuse a reader. The full statement was,

At least when you read my reply of late to huxley, you see why I didn't miss anything. My only question now is when you take the schema at the end of the discussion on that specific passage, what then happens when we go to other references - which is the point I'm trying to make. I have not read either you or huxley give a good answer to that, but I didn't come back bending your necks to it or dismissing all else you have said. I prefer to discuss an issue, not dismiss any argument out of hand.

Chrisbenogor:
How did you miss the part in red and just incase someone else is reading it what statement did I mean,

I didn't miss it - and I could quote you a ton of a page of what you guys have chosen to miss in mine since we entered this discussion. How could you be applying just one statement and trying to make that singular verse as the standard for the "greater scheme of things'? What you should note here is that while you're zoning in on that particular verse, I don't have a problem with that. But to make that singular verse the cap of all that the chapter addressed on relationships, I think you guys need to calm down and wonder at your choice of words.

Chrisbenogor:
I went further ahead to talk about the statement I meant

My dear you are totally misrepresenting what I said and I hate having to point it out because it takes precious time away from the issues at hand and we have not even got to the second part!

Thank you for the compliments. I think we should just leave it at that and get on with other matters on the subject. What do ya say?

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
There was a typo there. I meant to say "you are to take this in isolation . . . ."

It's not a problem - I knew it was a typo, we all have them, and that was why I only teased you. Just simply says we should not be too forward to allege things against others before we hear them out.

huxley:
It appears we are in debate about two issues here:

1) The direct meaning of the phrase and
2) The audience to who it was addressed.

It was in regard to the direct meaning of the phrases that I proposed the vegetarian/lean meant analogy.

Okay.

huxley:
Now, are we agreeing that sentences constructed in this fashion implicitly define a hierarchy of options.

It is good to be a vegetarian. But if you enjoy meat, eat only lean meat.
It is good to be teetotal. But if you enjoy a drink, have only low alcoholic drinks
It is good to the unmarried. But if you cannot resist sexual temptation, get married.

Yes and no.

Yes, if they apply and correlate to the subject we wish to illustrate - and No, if they do not. In which case I noted earlier that the way you had postulated that analogy may be good, but it simply does not bear a correlation to the ubject we're examining. Why was I persuaded so? Because the "hierarchy" was only relative and not absolute.

The case of making a particular verse an "absolute" is what I find problematic. Because if I compromised my stand, huxley, it would throw me off balance when I examine other verses. This was why even though we had been long on 1 Corinthians 7, I kept hinting that verse 38 (IMHO) is not to be treated as a stand-alone verse. In which case, if we kept up arguing back and forth on that verse, we may not get anywhere at all - and the other references to me as a Christian become more of a problem that a tessellation with this passage.

Let me explain just a bit more. Suppose I agreed with you with an "absolute" (rather than "relative" context. Then I look at Hebrews 13:4 - what would I assume? Would it not be that I take that verse as "absolute" over against other references? Part of what that verse says is this: "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. . " Would you be fair to yourself that I take this verse as a standalone and treat it as absolute rather than relative in consonance with the "greater scheme of things"? Could I argue therefore that Hebrews 13:4 puts marriage as honourable above all other relationships? I don't know how many people would agree with that premise - but I find that assumption hard to take in. Why? Because it should be relative and not absolute - meaning that, marriage is not to be viewed as the more preferred to celibacy in other connections.

I don't know if you now get my point?

huxley:
I submit that all three propositions above define a certain hierarchy of options, as follows;

[table][tr][td]1 Vegetarian [/td][td]1 Teetotal[/td][td]1 Unmarried[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2 Lean meat [/td][td] 2 Low Alcohol only[/td][td]2 Married[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Now, there is no getting away from the fact that these statements, in so far as they are constructed in that way, define such a hierarchy. Do you agree?

Yes.

huxley:
I agree that some context is required to give it is full meaning. And this is where the issue of the audience comes in.

Spot on - which was what I have been hooting for all along with such pointers to "stand-alone", "context". . "pre[/b]text", etc. My point has been just as about in the highlight.

huxley:
How can we augment the meaning by adding context and audience? In the vegetegian and drinking analogy, if your medical condition is such that you would benefit from these recommendation, then these ranking would be even more appropriate.

Which again was what I pointed to: that the [b]specific case does not apply to the whole. Initially, I was not inclined to go on about the lean meat analogy, because I felt deeply that it failed to address some fundamental elements in our subject. If I took the case of the "unmarried" and make it a case for the "married", then pretty soon we get boged down into an endless argument on just this note - applying the specific case for the whole.

huxley:
Now, this brings me to Verse 35, which you keep refering to. Here is it in its fully glory;

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Does this define a specific audience for Paul's injunction? Is the audience defines elsewhere in the chapter? In my earlier post, I asked whether the audience were Pastors, Ministers, Deacons, Bishops, etc. But as usual, you evaded that and gave no answer

I beg your pardon, sir. The best you could have said here was that you ignored the recommendations I gave of 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 to the effect that not everyone was called to the same capacity of service! How could you have ignored that answer to your specific question about everyone being called to service, and now accusing me of not having answered?

Now, I understand that verse 35 proves an enigma here for you as it does to many people - which was why I did not ask you to jump from verse 35 straight to v. 38 - what happened to the verses inbetween? Was it not even you yourself that distinguished one group of people from the other with "those who" and "those who"? Why make this distinction if there were no distinction between any group of persons there? Even when it seems there is missing link in communication between us on these matters, at least I can say that your distinction was uncalled for if it all meant that no group was distinguished from any other.

In very simple terms, let me put it like this: as in the case of your dichotomy above between the "vegeterian" and "lean meat", please see if verse 36 and 37 are not saying anything of what I have been saying. Please just look at those verses carefully again -

verse 36 - a man who thinks he is acting improperly toward his virgin

verse 37 - a man who stands stedfast in his heart, having no necessity

Certainly, I could not apply their individual cases in a criss-cross manner, could I?

But verse 38 is where the problem is - and you're persuaded that there is the big picture as to be preferrable above all other types of relationship, No? Please correct me if I'm misreading you on that.

But if I run no risks of misreading you on that note, then this is what I had asked for: we cannot stay on the verse 38 and treat it like a stand-alone (or "absolute" case above all other relationships. If I bend to your persuasions on that verse to make celibacy more preferrable over all types of relationships, then what happens when I read other texts that treat marriage with a higher hierarchy in practical Church life? Taking only that verse, I may be misled to think that it surpasses all other relationships - and that seems to be the case if and only if I ignore what the other references are saying. It then becomes clear that the analogy in yours between the vegetarian and lean meat was indeed a wasted effort.

Now, the "synopsis" you drew for verse 38 stands vacant. I'm sorry, but while you claim that it is a synopsis, it actually stands in your body of argument as a vacant inference. If we say "so then. . ", on what basis and to what object are we drawing that inference? Are we saying that "so then, in all types of relationships, celibacy is the more preferred to marriage"? If that is what you're saying, could you please show me where you got that idea from.

Cheers.