Logic Mind: Snowwy with all due respect, wtf what was that?

The Word you claim to seek.

Logic Mind: so an ignorant sinner that sinned all his life, did abominations and all, confesses and accepts jesus before he dies will go to heaven but a good man who does not believe will be cast in hell fire?

my mind has difficulty with this. please help me understand.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (KJV)
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.




Romans 5:14-15
 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.





Romans 3:10 (KJV)
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one





Romans 3:20-27 (KJV)
 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

@Logicmind,

1.Romans 10:9-10 (KJV)
 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

2. Acts 8:36-37
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

3. 1 John 2:3-6 (KJV)
 3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

 6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

John 3:16(KJV)
 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Acts 8:26-39 (not all verses picked) (KJV)
 27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

 28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

 30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

 31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

 36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.'

Abiding by the 'golden rule' without Jesus is void. He is the only One that can make you abide by it as God wants.
Please make use of this golden opportunity believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Yeah Zikky,
The discussion that led to me quoting the OT was not about burnt offering it was about what the priests partook of (the priests portion)...you brought it in thinking 'I would not be able to dribble my way out of this one'. It was obvious when you didn't paste the whole scripture I quoted.
Therefore, we were never saying the same things...you were just trying to 'set traps' which has caught nothing.
Nice day!

@goshen,
First of, I had thought we were speaking based on the bible. Suddenly you start giving me a history lesson...well I picked out the scriptures we were dealing with:

Tithe was NOT and I repeat NOT what established the Levitical priesthood. Where did you ever get that from?
God chose the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons (who actually were also Levites) to do service of the tabernacle and to make atonement for the children of Israel so there will be no plague among the children of Israel.when they came nigh the sactuary.

He did this because he did not want to take the firstborn of Israel (Reuben) which were already consecrated to him as holy.
Please read Numbers 8:14-26.

They were to make atonement for the children of Israel...that there may be NO PLAGUE among them when they came near the sactuary. It was this duty that made them stand to make the children of Israel perfect since they atoned for them.
Nothing unholy could come near God as such this is the perfection being talked about.

Therefore you can see how your anology that tithe established the levitical priesthood falls like a pack of cards.

The chapter says that Melchisedek was so great that even the Levites yet to be born paid tithes in him...it never said the paying of the tithe abolished Abraham's tithe haba...stop putting your own in it now.


Therefore if the levitical priesthood was what atoned for the sins of the people to make them perfect, what need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchisedek and not after Aaron.

Now read Heb7:15-16
Jesus was made not after the law of the commandment, that Levites should be used as 'atoners' of the children of Israel to make them perfect, but after the power of an ENDLESS LIFE.

That is why the commandment going before was annulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof...for that law made nothing perfect except when Christ emerged to bring in a better hope.

Read on please and end at verse 28, for the law made men high priests with infirmity but the word of oath maketh the Son consecrated forever more.

@goshen, please that is what the scripture was talking about, the change and reason for the change of the priesthood and not disannulling 'giving a tenth' (of all things to annul) because of its unprofitableness and weakness.
(Edited).

Zikkyy:

Underlying this statement is the fact that things have changed, we've moved on (or away) from the way things were done in the OT

Thanks for the advice of humor...very true.
A merry heart and the joy of the Lord is our strength.

If that is what you have as come-back after all said and done by you about me running away and all. Then so be it. Lol. I am just surprised this is all you have to offer....things have changed and moved on...yeah Zikky's advise. I have made my points from the word and have adequate backing...that is what I abide by.
Cheers.

Zikkyy:

You still don't get it. Are you saying burnt (grain) offerings is still applicable So we can still take our cereal/meat to the church and burn it on the pulpit 'for a sweet savour unto the Lord I told you it will be difficult for you to dribble your way out of this one

I actually re-read this an laughed.
Yeah, incase you have not read up to that part in your bible, you do not need to burn anything as offering to God now...just give it. Read Paul in Phil 4:18:

'But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.'

goshen360:

@ Snowwy, What do you mean by the highlighted statement sir? And besides, I disagree with you that NT believers should give much more than the OT. We have principles guiding our giving in the NT, now according to the law.

Is that where I 'quoted' that people that do not tithe are stingy? I thought that was what you went to look for.


@goshen, was it not your very self that quoted Acts 4:32 as the new guide to giving in the NT.
How come all of a sudden you say that you do not agree with the NT believers giving more than OT.
People that sold lands and houses...not even as a matter of the law.
Do you think I am talking of giving more in terms of amount or in terms of proportion.

The principles of giving you mentioned is he that
soweth sparingly will reap sparingly, the measure you give is what you will be given, give as the Lord has prospered you and in all this still give with a cheerful heart.
What you said above has just proved again that those who say do not tithe do not give as much as those that do.(Proportional to what they have of course) just like Mark 12:41-42.

goshen360:

My explanation might be lengthy because you don't expect me to root a verse and just explain it. I have to deal with everything. Let me try quote where you said people who don't tithe are stingy if i can still get it.

@goshen, I am not expecting you root for a verse...I said just make it concise...please by all means try quote me.

Zikkyy:
com'on Snowwy, you can't be doing this to your good friend how can you be stepping aside at this crucial stage of the discussion? It's not fair you know

I can see you are very sneaky. I have said I think I am done explaining to you...you should have posted the whole verses I quoted and see how it relates to partaking of things of the altar which was what we were discussing.

I therefore am yet to get the humour in taking a handful from the offering by the offeror as burnt offering and the rest (the largest part) that is unburnt is given to the priests as meat.

Besides it's not like it makes any difference...I can see this is nothing but a game to you. Guess the word is the one dribbling you.

@goshen,
Please make your post as concise as you can especially as we have discussed at length on tithe already.
Besides note than the main scripture interpretation that is in contention is Heb.7:18 which you have claimed tells us the what is annulled there is tithe.
Thanks.

@goshen360,
I do not like an argument either, all I was trying to do was hear you out on your views especially since you made it judgemental.
I never said those that don't tithe are stingy...please quote me in those 'exact words'.

You are right that Jesus said the people should not do according to the works of the pharisees and these works you know were majorly hypocritical and he told them why they shouldn't do it. He however said they should do as they say. Matt 23:3-4

He said they tell the peoole to do but they themselves don't do. They lay heavy burdens on people without lifting a finger to help.

Jesus himself affirmed that unless their righteousness exceeded that of the pharisees, they would in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:20.

It is obvious Jesus was telling the people to not do all the hypocritical acts of the Pharisees. They had behavioural issues, that was the problem. The righteous REQUIREMENTS of the law is paramount and that is what we can do through Christ. Romans 8:4

That is what I have been trying to say since.

The pharisees did not tithe hypocritically, they were hypocrites. The law was right but they just had a way to make it seem what it was not.

I have explained all about what is tithed in previous posts, please go back and look at it.

Tithing did not have dispensation just like giving offering. This was given before the law and done in faith which is the way it is to be done today since everything we should do should be of faith in the first place...giving and the other things as well.
Mercy & faith were all before the law as well.


You have the belief not to tithe, fine...however don't make an issue for those who do...that is it.
We can discuss when you are ready....what about Heb 7?

Zikkyy:

Do you know what altars are used for? I know of two altars in the OT; the altar of burnt offering and the altar of incense (for burning incense ). So, what are talking about? What burnt offering is still applicable? Let's see how you dribble your way out of this one I hope you will not run away this time



You could not find as a verse in the whole of the OT, you had to visit the book of Mathew Don't tell me you finally agreed with goshen360 that Jesus lived under the law Anyways all i need from you is the list of burnt offerings that are still applicable, chikenna

Maybe you can also take some time to describe this thankgiving offering you are talking about, cos i still don't understand it

Lol, thanks for not dissapointing me as I knew you would try to latch unto that.
Read Lev. 2:1-3; Lev 6:14-17
Go read it up, the grain offering was a voluntary offering of worship and recognition of God's goodness of the 5 offerings given at the altar in Moses time.

Lol at dribbling, you have nitpicked and I have answered you enough. I was holding this unless you asked and you have.
Therefore, I think I am done here.

Zikkyy:

Where! when! How? My intervention on this thread has to do with your interpretation of 1 Co. 9:13-14, nothing more.



You've spiced up that particular verse and delivered something quite different from that of Paul. Check out the quotes below; one from the bible and one from the gospel according to Snowwy see if you can spot the difference

1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel

Vs. gospel according to Snowwy:

1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the things of the Jewish temple and partake of the altar chop-chop.

@Zikky, the scripture explains itself as simply as it should.

'Even so' and some scriptures say 'in the same way' has the Lord ordained that those who preach the gospel...'
And I have explained.


Jesus said tithe (it is used for the ministers) should not be neglected, Paul spoke basically on the law throughout that verse, he talked about the right to eat and drink without working, and if it was wrong to reap our material things since he has sowed spiritual things. He took wages from churches and yet you say it is my gospel.
As I have said earlier, you are yet to prove to me why you took me on...but since you have not offered any better explanation, let it be.
Cheers and do have a great day.


@goshen360,
We still have things to complete o except you are no longer interested in telling me how Heb 7:18 annuls tithe and Matt23:23 commends mercy, faith etc and condemns tithe.

For me I strongly believe in giving to the gospel AND to the poor and needy.
It is not a matter of 'OR'. We are to do both.

There are so many needs on every front and I always pray the Lord Jesus make me a channel of blessing to meet His need in every area by His grace.

I have been asking and no one has answered, even goshen360.
If Jesus said have mercy, faith and love of God and do not neglect to tithe, why do those against tithe have an issue with tithe and are silent on mercy, faith and love.
If a tenth is now a problem, is it not obvious the hypocrisy of those saying give, give, give but do not give a tenth?
Not forgetting the fact that the tithe is not the only giving being done.

[/i][i]

Zikkyy:

You agree some offerings don't apply abi? Yet Paul made reference to them. If Paul had just the things of the temple in mind, that verse would have gone like this:

1Co 9:13-14 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple?. . . . Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

There was no need to refer to the things of the altar if he did not want you to partake of the altar. So question for you; if the things of the altar don't apply anymore, why did Paul refer to the things of the altar? i know you will avoid this question, but it something for you to think about.

Yes I said some offerings do not apply and that is what I explained.

There were other offerings of the altar that were applicable like thanksgiving offerings and other gifts. That I know you know of...Even Matthew 5:23 is a good example.
The ministers also partook of this.

I wonder why you said I would avoid the question, except it's something you would do and thus expect others to follow suit. *smh*

Zikkyy:

You are the one thinking tithe. If you are going to interpret a bible verse as referring to or talking about tithe, the bible verse should truly be talking about tithe. So when you refer to that particular verse to substantiate the remittance of a tenth of your income to the church, the verse should be support your claim.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is what was the purpose of that verse? what was Paul's concern in that chapter? was it about support/benefit for those that preach the gospel or was it about the nature of the support/benefit? Was Paul really concerned bout the nature of the support? Reading from the first verse, you can tell the nature of pastoral support was never an issue. I still don't understand how can you interpret that verse to imply that Paul was talking about supporting pastors with tithe.



The inference from the OT tells us how the ministers of old lived, but it did not tell us to also live exactly as the ministers of old lived. If those that minister about holy things live of the things of the temple and they that wait at the altar are partake of the altar, so also those that proclaim the gospel should make their living from the gospel. How does making your living from the gospel equate to living of the things of the temple or partaking of the offerings at the altar?

@Zikky, the nature of pastoral support was never an issue, it is you and the others making an issue over it.
The scripture is there as plainly written for all yet you ask me why my interpretation is what it is? You are still asking me why I interprete that as the ministers of old lived of the temple, so has the Lord commanded that those that preach the gospel should live of it.

Well you are yet to provide me with the reason why you should interprete it differently. Simple.

BERNIMOORE: @snowwy,

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN TOLD TO DESIST FROM USING 'AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIEDECK' WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POINT ON THE TITHE,NEITHER DOES IT EMPOWER YOU ANY EXTRA RIGHT OUTSIDE THE NULIFICATION OF THE LEVI PRIESTHOOD ON THE CROSS.
YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT CHRIST PRIESTHOOD 'AFTER THE ORDER'MEANS WILL BE SIMILAR;'LIKE FOR LIKE' OR 'RESEMBLE'THAT OF MELCHIDEDECH WHO DOUBLED AS KING-PRIEST,SAME WAY JESUS PRIESTHOOD (after the order)WILL 'RESEMBLE' MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD,AND IT HAPPENED WHEN JESUS WAS DECLARED 'KING OF KINGS'AND A 'PRIEST FOREVER',ANYTHING OUTSIDE THIS FORMULATED AS A 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHIZEDECK'THAT EMPOWERS FRAUD IS TOTALLY NOT SUPPORTED IN THE BIBLE,
BUT WAS CONCUCTED USING 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'

SNOWWY, ARE YOU A JEW? DO YOU YOU RECEIVE YOUR OWN GRACE BEING A JEW? SO WHEN JESUS WAS CASTING WOE TO PHARISEES FOR PAYING TITHES,DOES IT APPLY TO YOU WHO IS NOT A JEW? AND IT ENDED AFTER JESUS DEATH. 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'.

I wonder why you are going hot under the collar especially when the bible said 'after the order of'.
I wonder what right you have to tell me I should not use it...you mean I should not use the word of God because it is an issue for you?

Christ priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek:

Hebrews 7:17 KJV
' 17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.'

Melchisedec received tithes, Christ's priesthood is in the order of Melchisedecs, Christ says do not neglect to tithe.
Please if this does not mean anything to you, let it be, calling this a fraud is really unfortunate for you.


If you have an issue with that verse why don't you take it up with God rather than come ranting over nothing.
The scripture is plainly stated.


So I have to be a jew to follow the word of God. Why did he cast the woe? Was it not stated why he cast the woe? Why are you so angry over nothing.
Didn't Jesus cast woe on the lawyers, even Paul said Woe is me if I preach not the gospel.
If you look at why the woe was spoken then you will understanbd but you keep looking at the letter.

If Jesus said have mercy, show faith and leave not undone Tithe why are you so angry at tithe?
Was it not you trying to explain to me 'under the law mercy' and 'under grace mercy'.
You are funny o. [color=#990000][/color]

Ziggy:

. . . and it is not a licence for the pastor to go suck the milk out of the female members of the church It's just an analogy.

.

@Zikky na you sabi o if that is what you get as the interpretation of that scripture.

Zikkyy:
The idea of comparing an NT requirement to an OT practice is not a charge for us to adopt the OT practice, it's most times just a means of providing clarification or better understanding of the message. 'Living of the gospel' does not mean the pastor is entitled to the priestly benefit under the law. It simply mean that those that preach the gospel are also entitled support just like their OT couterparts. The nature of support will be as determined by the giving practice of the early Christians. What were the holy things of the early church? certainly not tithe, it was never mentioned.

@Zikky, if you use the word 'ENTITLED' and we are given an inference from the OT, If you decide to make your own conclusions from it...I have no issues.
However if the inference from the OT tells us how the ministers of old lived and later a scripture tells us our High priest is a priest after the order of another priest who himself received tithes, then I don't think tithe being received or given is not having a better understanding of the message. Especially if Jesus said tithe should NOT be left undone.

And I keep saying, the early christians (jews) sold land etc and brought to the apostles feet (Peter) for distribution to all that needed. We were not told the proportion everyone took but the apostles did not lack, they partook of this and we see nowhere being told Peter and other apostles needed as all their needs were supplied. Paul however had to work especially as the gentiles didn't understand as the jews did. Though he mentioned at a point receiving wages of other churches...

Zikkyy:
1 Corinthians 9:13 (KJV)
13Do 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?

What were the holy things of the temple that ministers of old benefited from from?
If we go by what we read in the old testament, the tithe does not get to the altar. What gets to the altar and given to the priest are offerings like guilt offering, cereal/meat offering, sin offering e.t.c. so, if the pastor is to live of the holy things of the temple/altar, he should be considering the offerings listed above (excluding tithe).

That scriptures says the ministers live of the things of the temple. And also the things of the altar. It is two fold.
You just mentioned the things of the altar which yourself know do not apply anymmore as Jesus has taken away the need for a guilt offering, sin offering, trespass offering, and other oblations. Besides the tithes, the priests were entitled to portions of these sin offerings, tresspass offerings and other oblations which were brought to the altar by the people- which don't apply.

I am talking about ALL the tenth which God said is holy unto Him_Lev 18:21, Lev.27:30, II Chron.31:4-5.

The tithes were received into the store house of the temple? II Chron.31:11-12, Mal.3:10 says this. There were chambers in the house of the Lord for this.

So the holy things of the temple has tithe and they are stored in the storehouse/chambers in the temple. Guess bring all the tithes into the storehouse rings a bell now...

Pls take it easy. Do not sin or let the sun go down on your anger whoever it may be that angered you.
We celebrate Jesus resurrection today, pls forgive and forget.
Cheers.

goshen360: @ Snowwy,
The second part too that is mostly ignored which is the balancing side is what you are now talking against here. I strongly believe as stated that whatever is given to us freely should be received. Our difference here is the perspective from which we are seeing it. I am seeing it from the fact that the LORD gave a commandment to them which i showed you the place Jesus commanded it. Jesus did not commanded from tithe as he, Jesus himself did not teach tithe neither did he teach the Apostles to teach tithe. We both know from the word of God that Jesus and the Apostles all received support and so i stay in that context only and don't go beyond that but you are saying because Paul said even so the Lord commanded that those who work in the temple also partake of the thing of the temple, if this is your argument, then we will come to the conclusion/argument that the things of the temple that is tithe according to you, are not money but crops and animals.

If you claim that Jesus saying 'tithe should not be left undone or neglected' as not teaching tithe then I wonder what you inferred from Matt23:23 and Luke 11:42. Especially since he said mercy, faith and the love of God are paramount. You said he was 'under the law' then and we know He was yet to be high priest, why would be entitled to tithe at that time seeing a priesthood was in place? I would advise you don't dabble into the fact that he was referring to the Pharisees only because I will ask you why you are born again (and a host of other things he told the other people apart from the then disciples today) since he was talking to a Pharisee when saying this. So let us leave it at that.
That is why my first question to you on this thread is that is mercy, faith and the love of God done away with along with tithe since it is clearly part of what Jesus said should be done.
Since the things of the temple are crops and animals, was it not obvious it was products of the people's labour. What is the product of your labour? If you are working, at the end of the month, do you receive crops and animals as your reward? By all means, present day farmers can tithe crops if they want to.
The poor people in the OT, were they not left to glean crops in the field or given crops etc as food a lot of the time? In Jesus time, why was there so much emphasis on money? He said go sell and give to poor.
Luke 18 further sees Jesus telling us some who trusted in their self righteousness and he said the Pharisee fasted and gave tithes of all he possessed. That is an example of giving all and not only crops...

Many blessings in the OT has to do with the land yeilding plenty, or the vine yielding her increase,or the tree blossoming, do you claim such blessings?
If you do, are you an agriculturist? Are those blessings meant for farmers only?

goshen360: @ Snowwy,

Your question about, "Paul and Barnabas also had a right to marry and they did not use this right? Are you now telling me that therefore in following Paul, we should not marry? Please answer this in light of the fact that they refused their right to this support as well".

As we know, when you mentioned some churches in your reply, of course you also know some churches follow the example of Paul not marrying. That should not be an issue of an example to follow, should it be okay to live by.

Does their deciding to marry make marriage wrong? If Paul and Barnabas refused to marry or take sustenance, where they wrong? No.
For those who decided to take sustenance and marry, where they wrong, No.

It is obvious therefore that the right of support as commanded by the Lord in the same way with the time of old is not wrong. Therefore as you said, the right to support is also an example of a non-issue as well, should it be ok to live by the use of that right....hope you understand.

goshen360: @ Snowwy,

What am saying is a striking balance. I confirmed to you that they (we) that does the work of the ministry have the right to SUPPORT and I stay in that context only and only when given or offered to us. Only the levites/priest are "commanded" to have rights to receive tithes and no other tribes.

Brother, if your interpretation is based on the fact that Paul was referring those "who minister in OT feed from the things of the temple" and that refers to the tithe, then Jesus also ministered and would have received tithe since tithe is the things of the temple according to you. Other Apostles that came from another tribe would have received tithes also but they didn't. This is what am trying to let you see that "even so the Lord commanded" was given to them by Jesus in Matt 10:10 and Luke 10: 7-8. Paul was only drawing a pattern from OT which does not necessarily the same tithe since none of them are from levites, Paul cannot mean that as you interpreted it. I want you to think about this area too, only levites and priest must receive tithes. Should it be that same tithe being referred to by Paul according to you, I think even Jesus too would be that first to receive or be supported by tithe. I hope my language is clear now sir?

As I said, Jesus was our confirmed high priest after his death since he took up the sins of the world. That is Heb 7 talks about.
As you said, the labourer is worthy of His hire and this was evidenced in the scriptures Paul spoke about in I cor 9. (The soldier, the flock tenderer etc).
Geneis showed where Melchisedek a priest, who was not a levite received tithes and Christ is a priest after the order of him. We will continue in Heb 7 when we get there.
Since Paul was drawing inference from the OT, how can you say he did not mean what I interpreted...what other interpretation would he have meant that he did not draw from at that point and called it a right.

@Goshen, because you chose to draw your own interpretation from it does not mean I should draw the same especially with the stark plain scriptures referring to the OT from almost all of the I Cor. 9.

See I have no issues if you don't see it as plainly stated in scripture, the issue is inferring your own interpretation and calling that of others wrong.
Therefore telling me that 'Paul did not mean what I interpreted' is really surprising. If he didn't mean it as a right referring to OT why did he go this length to explain the OT.
You have drawn your interpretation, please respect that of others especially when the scripture speaks by the Spirit for itself.

Happy Easter and I pray the understanding of Jesus Christ's death for you and for me will yield greater meaning in our lives.

@goshen,
I Cor 9:3 says 'My defense to those who examine me is this:'

First of, some people were examining Paul for one reason or the other. Why? He continues when you read on.

Do you realise that the right to eat and drink was enjoyed by the other apostles as against what Paul and Barnabas enjoyed?
May be you can explain what that right is in light of I Cor. 9:13-14.

That was why he asked if it is only He and Barnabas that had no right to refrain from working? The other apostles were not working...

He goes on to explain that is he saying this as a MERE man or doesn't even the law confirm the fact that he who tends to the flock also enjoys it's milk?

Read on...then he says that the Lord has COMMANDED that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel just like the ministers of old ate of the holy things of the temple.

Is it Rocket science to know what was used to care for ministers in the time of old? You yourself has said tenth is freewill giving or why would you quote the below?

[/quote]

goshen360:

[b]If we stay in context of this discourse/teachings/letter/epistle, then it is BY THE SAME FREE WILL OFFERINGS/GIVING THAT COMES TO US AS THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD AS COMMANDED BY THE LORD.

In conclusion, this epistle/discourse/letter is NOT written to justify a right (even though i am entitled to it) but rather for US TO SELF DENIAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. v15[/b]Should we receive a free will offerings if given to us as the Lord commanded? YES.

Freewill offering is stated in the old testament, why are you Ok with that and not with tithe especially when there is no explicit word 'freewill offering' in the NT? Is part of this self denial not also forfeiting the right to marry? I Cor 9:5.

Paul went on further to say 'we have not used this right'...we (Paul & Barnabas) have not used this right.
Did their not using the right which the other apostles have make it wrong? No? They decided to ENDURE so as in no way hinder the gospel and he did not want anyone to make his boasting void.
The other apostles were teaching the jews who understood the need for caring for the ministers but Paul was speaking to the gentiles who were a continuous work and did not understand this and had to come to that understanding.


Please do not lose sight of the fact that these rights were not only for food & drink but for marriage too. I Cor. 9:5.
Paul and Barnabas also had a right to marry and they did not use this right? Are you now telling me that therefore in following Paul, we should not marry?
Please answer this in light of the fact that they refused their right to this support as well.


Full time ministers have no other work and thus should enjoy this right. Some ministers work today and do not partake in tithes solely for this reason. There are also other people who are full time workers in the ministry that partake as well. I know some churches pay their music ministers and other full time workers in the church. However, they pay those that are called to the full-time work rather than pay an usher just because he/she is not working...the calling has to be there first.

I would advise you to refrain from saying 'a conclusion is wrong' especially since you are yet to provide a better one. It makes it feel like it is only your conclusion that is right.
Paul said ministers of old took sustenance of the holy things of the temple and we know God said the tithe is holy unto Him and it provided food in His house and he had given it to the levites. Paul continued that even so, some versions say in the same way has the Lord commanded...

From this please tell me where my conclusion is wrong.


I would advise you answer all these questions FIRST before we move on. Thanks

@goshen, my post explains itself...there was nowhere we discussed that it was the tithe that made Abraham rich
You brought up what was not discussed asking me to explain. I only told you to read the reason why Abraham did not take his own portion of the loot...you inferred what was not from it, do you get me?

Like I said I am waiting for you to explain that the Heb.7:18 is talking about tithe being abolished.
I will also hope you stay within context.
Cheers.

Pastor Kun:

Bros abeg stop evading issues! Which false allegation did I make about you The onus is on you to come out clean say the truth and admit you have been telling lis to justify this tithing fraud.

As usual Pastor Kun, you don't have anything to say. Yet to lied that I am 'twisting' scripture. Show me where I did and see your response. You have proven your inconsistency yet again and I can see you are just trying to derail the thread.



@goshen,
You asked me that does tithing or not tithing make one rich and I said tithing can make one rich and not tithing can make one rich also.
Why?
Correct me if I am wrong, you stated on this thread that some people are rich that do not tithe didn't you? Ofcourse you are right. There are even stingy folks who are rich as well.
At the same time tithing can make people rich as there are blessings attached as the blessings of the Lord maketh rich and addeth no sorrow.

How did I spiritualise this?
I never said Abraham wasn't rich before tithe and never did the bible, I just answered your question.

You have said tithing is giving hence, there is nothing wrong or abolished in giving tithe, offering, to the poor, to the needy, to family, to brethren etc.

I await your responses on the others.

@goshen,
You brought up the issues of the various questions I answered. You brought up the issue of Acts and I answered and asked a question...you are yet to respond to that.
If you want to stay on topic, please do. If tou bring up other scripture, please do not expect me not to respond on that as well.

1. Ofcourse, the tithe Abraham gave to Melchisedek was freely given. Does this not show to you that a tenth is part of giving though in this case it is to a priest?

2. Tithing or not tithing makes one rich ofcourse just like taking bribe can make one rich. Does it make one blessed? That is a different thing.

It would be nice to hear this 'hidden' thing in the other scriptures though as a long thread might not receive my input as it should...other things can take up ones time.
If you do not hear from me may be till tomorrow, pls know I am focusing on other stuff.

goshen360:

Let me start with your definition. One of the things I was taught in the bible school in interpretation of the bible is context and using the scripture to explain scriptures. This is what i will like to do here to teach my understand. Okay.

Tithe is tenth. It means if one has 100 items split into ten parts and bring one part of it right? It is still same thing as saying 10 percentage of a given number of item. We both understand the meaning of tithe and that is not an issue.

Abraham gave tithe to priest Melchizedek. Okay. You and I don't disagree on that but let's consider CONTEXT. Abraham gave tithe to Priest. Which Priest, Melchizedek.

Now let's go back to the story. Gen 14:17 - 24.

Extract from the above verses.

Abraham went to war and had victory.
He met king of Sodom
He met king of Salem who was also a priest, Melchizedek
Abraham gave tenth of the Spoils to Melchizedek
Abraham gave the rest 90% to king of Sodom
Abraham kept nothing except what his servants had eaten

First and in contracts to what tithe preachers teach today. We should tithe from our income. Here we see the items of tithes Abraham did not from his income. Now, let's some little bit of justice here. If someone goes to war and conquer some stuffs, it means those properties becomes his, right. Am sure you agree with me the answer is YES. Now let's use same "common sense" here which is not permitted anyway, but let's allow it. Abraham gave tithe from spoil, not his income but assumed to be his properties after victory so he gave tenth to the King and Priest, Melchizedek AND ALSO GAVE THE 90% TO KING OF SODOM. We will therefore do justify to interpret this context that, assuming it's our income (because the spoils had become Abraham's properties) then we also FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF GIVING AWAY THE 90% AND DON'T KEEP ANYTHING.

We do not have record of God commanding Abraham to do this but let's still "assume" God told Abraham to give the tithe, then we should also come to assume or conclude that same God will say give the 90% and if we interpret this, it will mean the people that stick to tithe (10%) should also give away the remaining (90%) without keeping anything.

Second, you said the israelites also gave tithes to the Levites for their work in the temple. Same way Jesus commanded that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel I Cor.9:13-14. The labourer is worthy of his reward.

You know what? This is where you are RIGHT. And am gonna tell you why. The purpose of the tithe in OT is to CARE FOR THE LEVITES AND THE PRIESTS. Why? Simply because they don't have INHERITANCE AMONG THE PEOPLE. Numbers 18:20-21. Now the levites and priests who MINISTER IN THE TEMPLE ARE ENTITLED TO THE TITHE. This purpose is for PEOPLE NOT FOR THE TEMPLE. Let me show you how that applies today. Today, we the people are the temple and not the building. This is exactly what Apostle Paul brought into the Context of 1 Cor 9:13-14. The purpose of taking care of the people (minister) who minister in the temple HOWEVER THE PERCENTAGE WAS NOT APPLIED TO IT IN THE NT as Paul spoke and I will also tell you why, because the principle changed from the early Christians when giving becomes free will and sacrificial, starting with Acts 4:32.

Let us treat this aspect first before I go further to explain those verses you wanted me to explain, else we will mix stuffs together. Let me see where you have a different view from what I said above.

@goshen, sorry I didn't realise you have posted this.
Like you said, Abraham gave a tenth to the priest who he met when returning from the battle of Sodom.
Suffice to say, he met him ONCE, on HIS WAY, He had ONLY the spoil with him which was now His PROPERTY.

He gave tithe of ALL even though God didn't command it like you said he gave it.

Now did you read the reason why Abraham did not take the rest of the spoil. Please read on where He said he won't take anything of the King of Sodom so the king of sodom will not say he made him rich, yet he allowed his men to take THEIR PORTION of it? Simply, he did not want anything to even do with the King of Sodom and no the king of Sodom did not get 90%. He got what was left after Abrahams men rightly took their own portion of the spoil.

What would you claim Paul meant if he inferred from the OT what those that worked in the temple lived of it and IN THE SAME WAY the Lord commanded that those of the gospel should live of it?
You yourself said it was not mentioned in the NT the percentage yet he quoted the scripture and even called it a right. Read 1 Cor. 9 again. I respect that is what you have drawn from it but the scripture explains itself.

Do you believe that nothing is actually compulsory even to give? If you don't give you don't receive. If you even give to someone grudgingly, its not blessed.
If Paul could be talking to the church at Corinth about his rights as an apostle relating to giving, it meant it was not even compulsory...it can't be forced. If you don't give the tenth to God wilingly it yields nothing.
So freewill giving as you call it applies to all giving not just to tithe.

Acts 4:32 started where people sold land to give to the nrethren and to be shared among all, the apostles inclusive.
Have you sold any property you have and used to blessed all the brethren in your church or laid it up at the feet of your pastor or even the welfare department if you have one telling him you want everyone in church who needs to be given? If not please explain why?
I do not know where you worship but I know the host of people who wait to see pastors due to financial need and they are attended to though they might not be given all they want at that point or they are told to bring one thing or the other to prove their case.

Can we move on now to the remaining scriptures?
I might not respond till some hours from now as I have other things to attend to.

@Pastor Kun,
I am still awaiting response to your false allegation about me...I wonder why the sudden silence.

@goshen, I thought I have. Pls check again, I even copied your post. I also asked you where you saw in the scripture that the 10percent has been removed from tithe.
You are to explain I Cor. 9, along with Heb 7 and Matt 23:23.

Kindly quote where I twisted the word....you don't make baseless allegations without showing where it was said.
Where was the word of God 'twisted' by me?

goshen360:

Two things you have asked here. I will answer the later part and we will discuss the former together. How about that? or maybe I explain how I understand Heb 7, 1 Cor 9, and Matt 23:23 so we can then have fellowship together.

This is my stand on NT tithe and Giving. There are things principles that are established in the OT and brought also into the NT BUT CHANGED. One of it is tithing. In the OT, tithing is assigned a CERTAIN PERCENTAGE,10. It is a way of giving if you look at it. The change in the NT is that, the percentage is REMOVED.

So, when the word "tithe" is used along side with giving, it makes our giving not spirit led and acting according to the law. I hope my point is clear here. It is either we follow tithe as stated in the law, which are mainly agricultural produces and animals or we take GIVING, which is not agricultural produce/animals but in terms of anything which includes money.

My point and stand is this, All giving in the NT is based on Free will and Sacrificial that should be done cheerfully, not compulsion and done generously BUT NOT BASED ON THE LAW OF CERTAIN PERCENTAGE. I also believe, our giving as seen in the NT should go to poor, our Christian brethren in need/in the body of Christ, to the support of faithful ministry and to the orphans/widows. This is my stand as regards tithing and giving.

On the subject of Heb 7, 1 Cor 9 and Matt 23:23. I will like us to look at it together as no scriptures is of private interpretation or do you want me to explain my view about those chapters and we look at it together.

@goshen, I would be careful the way I say things concerning the removal of this or that. Where was the percentage of tithe removed?
Tithe is a tenth plain as possible.
Tithe was given to the Priest by Abraham, and the israelites also gave tithes to the Levites for their work in the temple.
Same way Jesus commanded that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel I Cor.9:13-14.
The labourer is worthy of his reward.

In the NT we see giving as a command as well. In the Measure you give you will receive...Give AS the Lord has prospered you.
It even says God is not mocked.

Giving is to family, the needy/poor, the work of God and those of the household of faith (especially those who labour well). All this is giving.

None should suffer. These were also done in the Old testament...they gave a lot haven't you noticed.

That is why I am surprised that someone says that giving a tenth is wrong even with giving offering, helping the needy and the poor, family (yet claims to give more).
And even claiming it has been abolished...the word of God cannot be twisted, the interpretation of that word is what seemes twisted especially when reading it with the veil of the law.

Therefore Goshen, kindly explain those scriptures based on your interpretation.

@goshen, Pastor Kun just confirmed it...in one case he is not against tithe per se, and will have no issues if it is used judiciously then he says it is fraudulent.
That is why getting into conversations with him is a waste of time.

Pastor Kun:

If they preach the truth and only encourage believers to do it on a voluntary basis with the caveat that monies collected would be judiciously used as christ would want, then I won't have any problem with it.

[quote author=Pastor Kun]

Besides @goshen, the above posted by Pastor Kun proves he is not against money as tithe therefore I do not see this as the issue he is raising. He 'talks from both sides of his mouth' is my issue with him and is not consistent.

@goshen,
A lot of the legailty in looking at tithe can be removed in the very scriptures I asked of you.
Why don't you give your opinion on those scriptures first before trying to speak for Pastor Kun? Then we will move on from there...I think that will be better.