₦airaland Forum

There is heaven, and there is hell.

As regards hell, it isn't as most believe about hell that is hell.

In most cases, hell is supposed to be a fiery burning place for the wicked at their death.

But for starters, hell isn't that; hell is nothing but the grave.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=330652.msg4642178#msg4642178 date=1254329320]@Jesoul you again,

wetin come dey worry your brain system of lately, believe me, i no even know who you be again sef, you are becoming to liberal a christian, abi ~ na the end-time-flu don catch you my sister

How could you be saying such, if you are joking at least seun was fair enough to create a section to address that. Have you ever asked yourself this question "what if this guy called pastor chris is genuine" i mean that is how true rational people act. At least try to shift out from the crowd and reflect on some issues b4 you talk write[/quote]Tonye,

Have you on ur own tried to think outside the box and ask urself, "What if this guy pastor chris is fake?". It would do you some good to see why he could be fake and is preaching a whole lot of balderdash.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4642101#msg4642101 date=1254328691]Ttalks,

are you hungry, he posted and i did too, you saw mine as his and then come up to say i was him, aint that disorder?

hmmm, i aint gat time to answer you bro, or could you be trying to create some form of thread/topic diversion as its the customs of some peeps here? such arguments to me are simply but baseless and lack no attention. You saw someone putting on a face cap and then told another you saw a helmet, isnt that childish? *shakes head*[/quote]Ok oooo. I don comot hand oo.

Only me saw what i saw abi? No wahala. .

Now back to the topic.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4641790#msg4641790 date=1254326659][font=trebuchet ms][color=#000099]Ttalks,

Are you trying to accuse me?, if i was same as gentle me, the best you wouldhave done was to quote the comment and atleast it would have had same format as Tonye's own with Gentle me's Id

Its so simple a logic, false accusation is a crime you know? [/quote]Tonye,

When I saw Gentle me's quote(which is exactly what u have in urs except for a few modifications above and below the numbered points) it struck me that it was similar to urs in the sense that it was just as it is now; especially with the blue lettered fonts. But i didn't think much of it because that was the last post and i didn't have any reason to say much about it( i felt maybe Gentle me was trying to emulate his obvious hero's style).

But alas, when i opened this page again, I noticed that Gentle me's quote had changed to what it currently is and that urs(which was fresh) was exactly what had been in his initially ,save for a few modifications.

Hence my smelling a rat and pointing it out.

Some funny/smart moves from ur end, aight?  

Hmmm, I smell a rat here.

Gentle me:
KunleOshod you again

This definitely wasn't what Gentle me wrote before,  

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4641055#msg4641055 date=1254321926]KunleOshod, you see, dis is where i always have issues or occasions to laff at you

1. Do you mean to tell me that, because Paul wrote/spoke to the Corinthian xtians his letters or admonitions didnt relate to the nigerian Xtians, because he spoke directly to the corinthians, or what about the ephesians and so on

2. Do you also mean to tell me that all the things Jesus wrote bfore his death where made irrelevant after his death, since you said "his death made away with all other things b4 his death

Brother na wa for you o[/quote]This is definitely what Gentle Me wrote before (although it has been edited somewhat   ).

Tonye - t, are u the same person as Gentle me? Do you need a second Id to show support for ur theories?  

OLAADEGBU:
Tithes and Offerings

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it" (Malachi 3:10).

Today there is much talk of financial security.  The Biblical formula in our text, given to Israel, but applied to all, begins with a scathing indictment.  "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings" (v..  What a terrible thing, to rob God.  The result of their thievery, in God's eyes: "Ye are cursed with a curse" (v.9), such that their financial state was much worse than it would have been had they been obedient.  This teaching and promise has not been rescinded (Luke 6:38; I Corinthians 16:2; etc.).

The verse(s) u quoted above were addressed specifically to the people of Israel within the old covenant. It was strictly meant for them and them alone.
It is not applied to all as u indicate above.
The verses below show that the covenant of old was for the Israelites alone and had nothing to do with the rest of the world:

Eph 2:11-12
(11)  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
(12)  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

It had nothing to do with the rest of the world then; it definitely has nothing to do with us today.
Therefore,all the charges there were strictly to those it was intended for; the israelites under the old covenant.

Based on the above, the only people who had opportunity to rob God were those who were instructed to tithe and do offerings under the old covenant. They could by with holding their tithes and offerings.

people who were never asked to or expected to tithe can not rob God when they use their possessions as they please.

Please learn to read verses of the bible within the context in which they are used and not based on some form of imagined spiritual connotation.

And It is somewhat criminal to imply wrong meanings to the verses u gave as backup for your opinions on tithes such as Luke 6:38 and 1 Corinthians 16:2.

Luke 6:38
(38)  Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Reading the above verse in the context in which it was presented, can u honestly say that it was talking about giving tithes or offerings?
Definitely not!

That verse was talking about the attitude we as Christians should have towards one another/towards others.
It is saying that we should have an attitude of giving to others who had need of varying kinds;not stricly financial,but in every way possible.
And it is our attitude of giving towards the need of others that would determine the response of others towards our own needs should they arise.
This is not about giving to God,but unto our fellow neighbors here and there as they have need.

1Co 16:1-3
(1)  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
(3)  And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

I put 1 Corinthians 16:2 in it's proper context so as to explain it.
Again, it was all about meeting the needs of those that had need;meeting the needs of fellow Christians who had various kind of material needs.

As verse one indicated some Christians had need, so a general instruction was made to the people to give of what they had towards meeting the needs of those Christians.A collection was being made at the first day of every week till Paul would get to them.
all these were done in this manner so as to prevent a haphazard collection of offerings(which included food,drinks,clothing,money,etc.) when Paul came around.
After Paul gathered their collections,he would go with them to those who needed them and give unto them;bringing to an end the collections being made for that purpose.
What the passage is teaching is simply this:
When needs arise, the gathering of brethren can decide to make collections over a period of time according to the ability of the people to meet those needs.

God's charge to us as given in our text is in three steps.  First, we are told to obey; i.e., "bring ye."  This cannot be considered an option.  Secondly, God proposes a test. "Prove me," He says, give and see if He lives up to His promises.  Thirdly, trust His promise to meet our needs.

Note that His promise is also threefold.  It abundantly covers present needs, for He promises to "pour you out a blessing" unmeasurable in quality or quantity.  Likewise it covers the threat of future loss.  "And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field" (v.11).  Most precious is His promise to reward obedience and trust with a special relationship: "All nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land" (v.12).

Thus we see that with less than 100% of our income at our disposal, we will have greater financial security than if we had kept it all to ourselves, thereby robbing God. JDM

All these do not apply to Christians.  

Tonye,tonye,tonye, 

it seems you are bent on reading a lot of things which i (and probably others )say in an upside down manner.

I'll draw your attention to this quote of urs:

Ttalks, from your reply to my point, i now know that neither you nor KunleOshod have any point to prove, because if you have been sincere to yourselves, you will agree that it was you and your likes that blantly criticised the law as abolished, now you come back here to say you never did such in the first place is purely immature say a thing and stand by it, do you understand?

I never denied saying the law was abolished. I still say it is because the bible says so. I only said it was not destroyed;but set aside/abolished.

Your problem is u assume (from your comments so far) that to abolish something is the same as destroying it. Here's some info for u below:

Abolish: to put an end to (a custom,law etc)
eg. We must abolish the death penalty.

Destroy:
1. Do away with, cause the destruction or undoing of
2. Destroy completely; damage irreparably

They're similar but not exactly the same. the context in which they are used would determine their meaning.
The former deals with a mere ending of a thing while the latter deals with the complete annihilation and destruction of a thing.(remember - context is important)

Another quote of urs:

Now i asked again and someone said a very funny thing that gat me laffing my ribs out, what?now let me stoop low to your understanding of the law in itself) I quoted from Matt.23:23 - That if you say titheing is part of the law, then you should also say that JUSTICE, MERCY AND FAITHFULNESS are part of the law, because Jesus called them law there    , and then someone either youself or your crew  , said The disciples only chose to practise justice, mercy and faith and leave titheing, now i ask, who is more rather confused, how can the disciples practise one and leave the other, wont they be guilty of the other? *shakes head* believe me you guys are simply pathetic. Again, even in Jesus' comment, the bible clearly stated that JESUS CRITICIZED THE PHARISEES AND NEVER CRITICIZED TITHE, because THE TITHE THEY GAVE WAS DONE HYPOCRITICALLY. Jesus said, Practise mercy, practise justice, practise faith and also do not neglect to pracitise tithe (MATT.23:23 -Hebrew-English paraphrased bible)

Tonye, we have never ever established that Jesus Critisized the tithe or any aspect of the law.Never!
Don't read false meanings into what we say.

And for the umpteenth time, Jesus was speaking under the dispensation of the law; so he expected that everybody under the law as at then should "practice justice mercy and faith and not leave the other(tithe) undone." There are things Christ preached under the dispensation of the law that were in regard to the existing law and some which were in regard to the new covenant.

Christ was expecting everybody who was alive under that dispensation of the law then to practice what the law stated.

But that period or dispensation has passed and a new one has begun which does not require the practice of tithes. This new period brought about the end of the old period and its requirements(all of them); and then brought about its own requirements(which reflect some aspects of the abolished period - justice,mercy and faith; which aren't explicitly stated but are shown more ways than none in different aspects of the requirements of the new covenant).

And before I forget, I would like u to answer the question I threw earlier which Olaadegbu evaded by throwing another question at me:

There is one thing i haven't really gotten from those who feel tithes still ought to be paid; and I hope i get it now:

Please;anybody who is in support of tithe payment, - Do you think that those of us who do not pay tithes are doing something wrong which God is frowning at us for?

I really need to see how u guys see us in that regard. 

I need a straight forward and to the point answer; based on all your conclusions about tithing.

I see they have snatched the other thread u opened and sent it into oblivion.  

Well, here's what i found: Islam and blacks.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4602137#msg4602137 date=1253790309]

- Even as regarding the law that you guys are condemning, Jesus christ even participated in it, If Jesus hated and abolished the law, then how come he even participated in the law and its provisions with examples listed blow:


1. He was circumcised, as did Abraham and his descendants (was it not in the OLD testament? that you guys call abolished testament) - Luke.2:21

2. He was dedicated in the temple, as did the law provided (was it not in the OLD testament?)

3. He was Baptized, as did Namaan of old under Elisha's time (was it not in the OLD testament? that you guys call abolised testament) -2kings.5

4. Even when he read, from what book did he read from (was it not from Isaiah's book of the ABOLISHED COVENANT as u guys put it)- Luke.4:17

5. He attended the passover and even practised it according to the was your ABOLISHED COVENANT says it should - Matt.26:17

and the list goes on and on safe for space and bytes.


[/quote]Welcome from ur obvious absence Tonye.

Now get this right: None of us are condemning the law(I wonder how u could reach such a conclusion).

Also,we never said Jesus hated the law. All we've established here is that he brought it's need and relevance to and end with his death.

You ask " how come he participated in it if he abolished it?"

Well, if u have been properly going through what most of us have been saying(it's quite clear now that u haven't really done justice to that) you would not ask us that question because:

- we have repeatedly affirmed it on this thread and so many other threads that Jesus Christ was born during the dispensation of the law.
- he lived according to the precepts of the law because he had to fulfil the law.
- also, as long as the law was in force, he expected every other person there and then to walk and live according to the law.

Now, the main thrust of our argument is that:

- the law had shown in many ways than one that it would be replaced by a new covenant. And the death of Christ on the cross was the complete and total fulfilment of the law; thereby ending it(not destroying it as some of you think we imply), setting it aside, and the beginning of the new covenant.

Rom 10:4(KJV)
(4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Rom 10:4(ISV)
(4) For Christ is the culmination of the law as far as righteousness is concerned for everyone who believes.

Rom 10:4(CEV)
(4) But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary for those who become acceptable to God by faith.

Here is a commentary on the verse above:

The subserviency of the law to the gospel (Rom_10:4): Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.
The design of the law was to lead people to Christ. The moral law was but for the searching of the wound, the ceremonial law for the shadowing forth of the remedy; but Christ is the end of both.
See 2Co_3:7, and compare Gal_3:23, Gal_3:24. The use of the law was to direct people for righteousness to Christ.
(1.) Christ is the end of the ceremonial law; he is the period of it, because he is the perfection of it. When the substance comes, the shadow is gone. The sacrifices, and offerings, and purifications appointed under the Old Testament, prefigured Christ, and pointed at him; and their inability to take away sin discovered the necessity of a sacrifice that should, by being once offered, take away sin.
(2.) Christ is the end of the moral law in that he did what the law could not do (Rom_8:3), and secured the great end of it. The end of the law was to bring men to perfect obedience, and so to obtain justification.
This is now become impossible, by reason of the power of sin and the corruption of nature; but Christ is the end of the law. The law is not destroyed, nor the intention of the lawgiver frustrated, but, full satisfaction being made by the death of Christ for our breach of the law, the end is attained, and we are put in another way of justification.
Christ is thus the end of the law for righteousness, that is, for justification; but it is only to every one that believeth.
Upon our believing, that is, our humble consent to the terms of the gospel, we become interested in Christ's satisfaction, and so are justified through the redemption that is in Jesus.

All we need to do is to believe in Christ and we are justified. We do not have to perform any requirement of the law to be justified before God.
All we need to do is believe in Christ and live according to the provisions of his new covenant.
The need for the law of Moses has been taken care of by Christ. Our righteousness is in him since he fulfilled all the requirements of the law.

So, no more adherence to an ended law by Christians.

KunleOshob:
@ttalks
How now? Olaadegbuu has consisitently proven himself to be unable to give straight forward answers as fars as this tithing fallacy is concerned. The reason being there is no straight forward scripture to support it so he as a matter of compulsion is forced to twist and panel beat scriptures to suit his delusions. That apart i suspect very strongly that he has personal interest in this tithing scam and is probably benefitting from the filthy lucre hence his reason to support it is personal and selfish. But then again, if you try a stop a man's source of revenue he is bound to fight back no matter how dirty.

Hello Mr. Kunle I'm ok as always.

As regards what u said above about Olaadegbu; I'll say "Hmmmmm".
But still, let me give him the benefit of the doubt . He just might provide a straight answer.
And if he does, that would be an achievement in the camp of tithe advocates because no single one of them has ever produced a straight forward answer
in that regard.

OLAADEGBU:
Can I also ask you whether it is right to pay tax to a corrupt Government, (that's if you pay tax at all).  This same question was asked of our Lord Jesus Christ, what answer did He give to this tricky question, do you know?

I asked a question first of all.Please give me an honest straight forward answer rather than an answer that would require me to read meanings into something.

I notice something about your approach to answers towards people who do not seem to flow along the lines of your reasoning: You always seem to exhibit this overbearing "holier than thou" attitude; kind of like saying u believe u are the only one who does things right.    that is regarding your little clause which is meant to imply that maybe I do not pay tax. 
Anyway, I might be wrong in that assumption.

But; as regards your question concerning tax, I do pay tax(never has a month gone by that I haven't - I even get tax refunds sometimes. ).

As regards the law of the land; the law which the government enforces, it is right and my duty to pay tax.

Rom 13:1-7
(1)  Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission. The existing authorities have been established by God,
(2)  so that whoever resists the authorities opposes what God has established, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
(3)  For the authorities are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you like to live without being afraid of the authorities? Then do what is right, and you will receive their approval.
(4)  For they are God's servants working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for it is not without reason that they bear the sword. Indeed, they are God's servants to execute wrath on anyone who does wrong.
(5)  Therefore, it is necessary for you to be subject, not only because of God's wrath but also because of your own conscience.
(6)  This is also why you pay taxes. For rulers are God's servants faithfully devoting themselves to their work.
(7)  Pay everyone whatever you owe them-taxes to whom taxes are due, tolls to whom tolls are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Christ's answer;"Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God what is God's" is very simple; the government has certain expectations of the people it governs and these expectations include taxes but not exclusively.
God also has expectations of us and currently his expectations of us are to adhere to the provisions of the new covenant(which I might add,does not require/ask us to pay tithes; and this is also not exclusive).
At the time of Christ making that statement, people were expected to adhere to the provisions of the old covenant(which means they were also required to tithe;but again, this wasn't the exclusive point being referred to by the statement).


Now, i would appreciate it if you answer me with a very straight forward answer.
At least, I have been gracious enough to answer your question before you made any attempt to answer mine; which shouldn't have been. 

blacksta:
Anti Tithers = Money has stronghold on you


You cannot serve not two masters.

Poor interpretation/deduction.Sorry.

There is one thing i haven't really gotten from those who feel tithes still ought to be paid; and I hope i get it now:

Please;anybody who is in support of tithe payment, - Do you think that those of us who do not pay tithes are doing something wrong which God is frowning at us for?

I really need to see how u guys see us in that regard.

Gentle me:
@chukwudi44,

wooow, look who has shoot himself, so they took some and left the other, wouldnt that be an offence? look who seem confused and desperate to prove a proveless point


@ ttalks

heresy, so u expect me to go back home and believe henceforth that justice, mercy and faith are not binding on we xtians, God have mercy on this desperate guys, na wa o, all for the sake of not wanting to pay tithe. you guys are just too greedy in my opinion, and i will rather choose to stick to boobyaf and Tonye-t's explanation because as it appears you people are raped off points

Gentle me:
Kunle this day i stand under the gospel of Christ and the knowledge that comes from obedience to say that [size=15pt]YOU ARE CURSED IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND HIS INSTRUCTION[/size], how dare you say i am curse, simply because you guys chooses to be greedy and jealoous because Men of God are blessed for their services, you stand to curse anyone who doesnt believe your SATANIC LIES

Believe me,time will tell, God's blessing abounds with them who beleive and obey.(isaiah says so)

Oh my!

Somebody is in quite a state!

I just want to say something about a portion of Bobbyaf's post above which says:

The common misconception is that God put away or abolished His law, when He Himself said that He didn't come to do that, but to fulfil it. When does fulfilling something abolishes it? If I promise to fulfil my marriage vows, then by their arguments after a while there will be no vows left. After Jesus baptism He said "thus it fulfills all righteousness"
Did it mean that He abolished all righteousness because He was baptised?

I guess we should all know that a word can imply/mean different things depending on the way they are used.

Fulfil can mean to carry out something on a continuous basis and also to carry out something once and for all.

The former is in reference to examples like the fulfilment of marriage vows while the latter is in reference to examples like fulfilling a promise to take your child to the park on a sunday.  

Now, looking at examples from the bible:


Mat 1:22
(22)  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
(23)  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

This was a fulfilment of a prophecy;something being carried out once and for all.

Mat 2:15
(15)  And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Another once and for all fulfilment.

Mat 2:17-18
(17)  Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
(18)  In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Yet another one.

Mat 26:52-56
(52)  Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
(53)  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
(54)  But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
(55)  In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
(56)  But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

And still yet another one.

Now, if one can be sincere, it would be noticed that practically all Jesus came to do were fulfilments of prohesies of old.
When ever he fulfilled those prophesies, they were once and for all.he didn't have to repeat them all over again for them to be recognized as fulfilled;which is the case in Marriage vow fulfiment where the vows have to be constantly done to keep them in fulfilment.

Christ was fulfilling every prophecy about him once and for all.

So when we read Matthew 5:17-18:


Mat 5:17-18
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18)  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Christ is simply saying that :Until all that the law and prophets had said about him had been fulfilled, nothing would change the law or the prophets;meaning they would still be in force.
In other words, when they had been fulfilled, a change will take place;and the law will no longer be in force.

Jesus Christ's death on the cross was the complete fulfillment of the law and the prophets;fulfilment once and for all;the final fulfilment in addition to the past fulfilments; making all fulfilled;completed,satisfied,taken care of.

Looking back at Christ's statement in Matthew 5:17-18, all has been fulfilled as prescribed and stated by the law and the prophets; giving rise to a change; the end of the law and the beginning of the everlating and new(not renewed) covenant.

Somebody shout Hallelujah!  

Gentle me:
Ttalks, you rather seem confused, you know why?

- Fortuantely, You have finally agreed to what Tonye-T has always been trying to say here, that if you guys think or agree that tithing is a law, then justice, mercy and faithfulness are also the law. because Jesus called Justice, mercy and faithfulness the law too. Now from the scriptures you quoted it simply shows that "IF ONE WILL KEEP TO JUSTICE, MERCY AND FAITHFULNESS, THEREFORE HE SHOULD ALSO KEEP TO TITHING" -James 2:10 (or will u call this one twisting also?).

In my opinion, if you dont want to pay tithe (lightier law) then u should not also show Justice, Mercy nor faithfulness (weightier law), because why will you show justice, mercy and faithfulness and yet despise the other, isnt dat not an offence?

just accept, you seem confused!

Gentle me,
Unfortunately, u are the one who is confused.
Upon all I and others have been posting in this threasd,u still can't decipher the points being made?

I and others have been trying to let u know that the law is no longer binding on us Christians.

The justice mercy and faith;and tithe according to the law are not binding on us.
What is binding on us is the Justice,mercy and faith which is communicated to us through the new covenant; not the law.
And according to the new covenant, we are not asked to tithe.

Go through the provisions of the new testament and see if there is no way justice,mercy and faith are communicated to us through them(that is apart from those highlighted by Matthew 23:23 which are of the law).

Chukwudi44 has given the proper explanation above.

And now,Tonye-t, - you are not of the opinion that the law has been replaced by the new covenant right?

Hebrews 7:12
(12)  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb 8:1-13
(1)  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
(2)  A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
(3)  For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
(4)  For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
(5)  Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(6)  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
[b](8 )  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9)  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13)  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.[/b]

2Co 3:6-11
(6)  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(7)  But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(  How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9)  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(10)  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
(11)  For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

NB: The letter above is in reference to the law/old covenant while the Spirit is in reference to the new covenant.

Mat 5:18
(18)  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Acts 15:5 to 32 is another interesting read.

There are still a lot that shows that Christians are not bound to live by the laws of Moses/old covenant cos they have been done away with.

It's all so simple Tonye-t.

Your prime verse of reference is the answer to your dilemna:

Matthew 23:23
(23)  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The above verse indicates that judgement,mercy and faith were matters of the law(the weightier matters) and so also were tithes matters of the law(but not as weighty as those earlier mentioned  )

The point being stressed by "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" is clearly expressed in :

James 2:10
(10)  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

In keeping the law of moses, one had to keep every aspect and not leave any aspect undone. 

Now, Tonye-t might like to say that tithes are not or is not a law.
But whose report should we believe?

Tonye-t's or Christ's and his apostles?

Christ pointed out in Matthew 23:23 that the tithe was a matter of the law; so that means without the law, there is no issue of tithes being paid.

Hebrews 7:5
(5)  And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Now, the above states that the old covenant stated that tithes were to be collected of the people.The old covenant stated how these were to be carried out as can be seen in various books of the law.

Now, see the below:

Hebrews 7:11-12
(11)  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
(12)  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The above states that with the change of the priesthood, there was also made necessary a change of the law.
That is; the Aaronic priesthood which had the law(old covenant) lock,stock and barrel with it, being changed to the priesthood of Jesus Christ which brought about the new dispensation;the new covenant,the new agreement.

Now, this new agreement contains all that is required of men towards God.

If we want to follow Tonye-t's analogy which says the law only showed how the tithes were to be handled in terms of collecting and administering(which is wrong by the way), this new agreement/covenant would define/explain/state in clear terms how the tithe is to be collected and administered if it should be in the first place; but - "ding,ding,ding"  - it doesn't.

Which leads to the very simple conclusion that tithes are not necessary or required to participate fully and productively in the new agreement.

All the issues of "law" and "standards" by Tonye-t are just mere hair-splitting and conjecture.

Tithes were an issue because the law made them so for the israelites, but the new covenant does not make tithes an issue for us Christians; plain and simple.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4583778#msg4583778 date=1253529228]A matured christian is expected to make statements and not sentence.

brgds.[/quote]Based on what "law" or "standard" ?

@bobbyaf and Tonye-t,

the only referal I can give you guys is the same one I gave before: The Misunderstood Covenant.

If after careful(patient and unbiased) reading, it fails to help u understand the differences between the old covenant and the new covenant, then it is really pointless talking about tithes.

Tonye-t, u have no point to support tithes in the new testament.
The examples u give are of freewill offerings which nobody is against.

And besides, Paul(even if he had the right to accept these offerings) laid an example which he expected other shepherds of the Christian flock to follow;by refusing to live by those rights.
He worked for his living.

This does not in anyway support ur theory on tithes or justify it in anyway.

^^^ And the delusion continues.

Col 1:13-18
(13)  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(14)  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15)  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16)  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(17)  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.(18)  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Joh 1:1-3
(1)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2)  The same was in the beginning with God.
(3)  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

mazaje:
Believing that christians alone can be saved is not a problem at all. . .That is what christianity teaches. . . but when all you do is fight even your own fellow christians that subscribe to that belief system all the time like davidylan does then something is definately wrong with you. . . .

My man neotic is sometimes guilty of this. . he shouts at his fellow christians too. . .

I don't believe the right word to use here is that he(david)/they "fight" with their fellow Christians.

The issue is: majority of people who claim to be Christians or "subscribe to that belief system" have the facts about it all messed up or twisted/upside down.
So, they need people to get them to see where they are faulty so as to get on the right track.

That is what David and noetic do as regards other "christians". I too do that; but maybe not as glaringly/pointedly/graphically as they do.

babaearly:
@ kunleoshob

Yes i have read your rejoinder.
But i have one question. Do the 10 commandments and tithing fall under the same Jewish Laws?

Tithing was a practice before the law of Moses.
There was no indication in the bible suggesting that God required tithing from men then cos there were no laws then.
Anybody who tithed then did it of his freewill; whether to God,King,priest, or whoever.
When the law of Moses was to be instituted, God incorporated the act of tithing into it for specific reasons.
So, tithing became a part of the law of Moses(jewish laws).

Remember, the law was a covenant between God and men.It was an agreement; anything within an agreement is part of that agreement, and also, anything not in an agreement is not a part of that agreement.

And yes, the 10 commandments are part of/fall under the jewish laws(law of Moses)

People are really funny!

Anyone who says that the consumption of alcohol is a sin really has to go back and check out a lot of things.
In what way is alcohol consumption a sin?

The bible establishes one fact about alcohol and that is: the abuse is the issue.
The abuse of alcohol leads to drunkeness which is wrong/sinful.

Alcohol is ok when taken responsibly and in moderation.

Apart from other verses in the bible indicating the undeniable fact that alcohol consumption was a normal practice within the Christian world, the following shows that the apostles and their followers did take wine(Fermented juice (of grapes especially)/alcoholic content) during the sharing of the lord's supper which was a regular practice:

1Co 11:20-21
(20) When you meet together, you don't really celebrate the Lord's Supper.
(21) You even start eating before everyone gets to the meeting, and some of you go hungry, while others get drunk.

Reading that chapter where those above verses come from and getting the point Paul was making, you'll notice that some of the unruly christians got drunk on the wine for the supper.Only stuff with alcoholic content gets people drunk when abused.

in simple terms, there were three dispensations indicated by the bible:

- the period before the law
- the period of/during the law(the old covenant period)
- the period after the law(the new covenant)

First period showed how God and his creations interracted.

Second period; God decided that his people should operate with him based on an agreement.
So he put everything he expected of them in that agreement(the old covenant/the law).

The third/current and final period; God sent Christ to die and establish a new agreement(new covenant) by which he would interact with mankind. Within this agreement were/are all the requirements God demands of his people to be in perfect tune with him.
N/B: Everything he expects of us is in there.

So, now operating within a new agreement, we aren't expected to be fulfilling or doing requirements of an obsolete agreement; or doing anything that was expected of the old agreement.

Everything that is expected of us is in the new covenant/agreement.

Curiously/strangely/amazingly, there is no injunction to tithe.So, it simply means that God does not expect us to tithe.

Why then are people still trying to force tithing into the Christian walk?

Tithing is not a requirement;whether physical or spiritual; for us Christians.This is so very simple to deduce.
Why is this hard to swallow?

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4482268#msg4482268 date=1252079094]And to add erasers to your errors, i will write that

Ttalks,

1. Who seperated /categorised the scriptures as OT and NT

2. Was the Pentatiouch lived in the Law or before the Law

3. Who institutionalised Titheing to the Israelites

4. Was Abraham an Israelites

Pls help answer this questions they will do you alot of good

Ttalks brong evidences from the scriptures and not link to another's article which could be false or wrongly informative [/quote]Q1. - I don't know them by name but i guess they must have been some very learned personalities
What I do know is that God was the one who seperated the old covenant(testament/agreement) from the new covenant(testament/agreement) through Christ's death on the cross.

Heb 8:10-13
(10)  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11)  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12)  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13)  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 10:8-10
(8  Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
(9)  Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
(10)  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Q2. - pentateuch- First five books of the bible.
Genesis did not have any part in the dispensation of the law, but the dispensation of the law began from Exodus 20 when God gave moses the law and moses made it known unto the israelites.

Q3. - Tithes were introduced to the israelites through the law by Moses.

Q4. - Abraham was not an israelite.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4482224#msg4482224 date=1252078722]Ttalks,

I have just a question for you

Did Abraham or Jacob who tithed did so during the Law or before the law?

Your answer to this is what will make me skip/refer to your comments as relevant/ irrelevants henceforth

and mind you i wasnt thinking highly of myself, because i would have said i won. Dont act too smart my brother!

God bless you![/quote]First of all, Abraham gave a tithe once and never again and he did that of his own volition;not by command or injunction. He did that of his freewill; a personal decision of his.

Secondly it wasn't recorded that Jacob gave a tithe. I wouldn't be surprised if he did ogboju in that situation since he was known as a deceptive person.
Also,Jacob only said he would tithe only if God fulfilled certain conditions.*Not a very good example for people to follow based on the current hype about tithing.*

Finally, all these took place in the period where there was no law.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4481173#msg4481173 date=1252070397]ttalks,

I read that link and there was nothing in connection to the topic, but the law, the same with the one you just posted, what a surprise that even the link you offerred was even buttressing my point farther that the law never affected the people who came b4 it like Abraham>Jacob. I had to paste this paragraphs from that article so you will even learn it[/quote]You still never got what I tried to say about melchizedek before.You assumed too much about what I said.
My point before was trying to make it clear that the issue about the order of melchizedk had to do with "the power of an endless life".
The bible indicated that Melchizedek had an endless life; so does Christ, making them to be of the same kind;the same order.

And also to your 1st line, i know that something is trying to tell you 'this is the truth ttalks, but ego wont let you accept it, nobody wants to loose, i understand!, but never worry i aint here to win either but to show you the truth as it is. God bless you [/color][/font]

Somebody is thinking very highly of himself here.

You indicated earlier that the links I posted did not bear any relevance to this topic. Well, if you've noticed most of our arguments, they've indicated that
tithes have to do with the law(which u do not agree).
The tithes as being paid, are according to the law. If the law is not in force, we are not obligated to tithe.
The law gave instructions to tithe and how to tithe.
The new covenant gave no instructions to tithe and how to tithe.
We are no longer under the law so we do not do anything it asks.
We are under the new covenant and we do what it says we should do.

The below is from the link I gave initially:

This understanding of the Law is very important to our understanding of the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant because it is commonly taught that Jesus only abolished the ceremonial and civil laws of the Mosaic Covenant when he established the New Covenant, leaving the moral law still effective. However, because the Scripture depicts the Law as a single, unified-whole we must conclude that Jesus abolished the entire Mosaic Covenant, including its moral laws (James 2:10-11). This does not mean that God no longer has laws concerning morality today. God's moral nature demands that He will always have a moral law for mankind. Before the Law He instructed men through their conscience and through oral laws passed down from generation to generation (Romans 2:12-16). This was necessary because no written revelation existed before the Law of Moses that could define right and wrong. Abraham never had a Scripture to tell him about God's laws, yet we read that Abraham obeyed God's voice, kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws (Genesis 26:5). The laws of God that have to do with His moral nature predated the Law of Moses and were added to what we think of as the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law, but when Jesus abolished the Law at His death (Hebrews 9:16-17) even what we would call the moral aspects of the Law were abolished. God did not abolish His own moral laws when He eradicated the Law, but He did eradicate the legality of the covenant in its entirety. He could not abolish some parts of the Law and not others because it stood as a single unit. After abolishing the entire covenant God reiterated His moral commandments to the church via the New Testament Scriptures. Whatever God's moral laws were before the Mosaic Covenant were also contained in the Mosaic Law, and continue to be so for us in the church age, written for us in the New Testament Scriptures. These moral laws were contained in the Law of Moses, but we have no way of judging whether or not they were part of God's moral law except for the fact that the command is reiterated in the New Testament Scriptures. If a Mosaic command does not reappear in the New Testament it can be concluded that it was not part of God's eternal moral law, for the identity of God's moral law is found in the expression of revelatory commandments in His Word (Romans 7:7-13).

The above quote shows that evrything we are doing according to the new testament is from the new testament and not the old.
Anything that seems to be from the old covenant is not from the old covenant but from the new covenant.
The above post should clearly have prevented the question u raised about justice,mercy and faith.

The new covenant, has all that is necessary for us Christians to live the lives which God intended for us to live.
And if you go through that new covenant, there is no instruction to tithe or how to tithe.

As usual, Tonye-t is talking like he really knows how people get to their conclusions.

Here's another link to explain further on the one I gave earlier:

Hebrews 7:12--Changed or Abolished?

Also, Tonye-t, I wonder if u really took out time to read the link I gave earlier because if u did, you wouldn't be asking the question u asked about Matthew 23:23 (whether justice mercy and faith were abolished).

Hope u'll read it and this one also.

Before the law, there were tithes.

When the law came, there were instructions by the law to tithe.
It was based on the instructions by the law to tithe that the people under the law tithed.

It is also very clear that every encouragement or motivation to tithe which currently happens is based on what the law said.

Christ himself also said that tithes were part of the law (Matthew 23:23).

Now any body who needs to settle it for himself/herself whether to tithe or not to tithe as a Christian has to understand the law and its complete distinction,seperation and difference from the new covenant.

N/B: The new covenant is not a continuation or adjustment/editing/addition of the old covenant(Law); it is a completely seperate and new covenant.

Further enligthenement can be gotten by reading the article in this link:

The Misunderstood Covenant.

Settle this for urselves people.

Tonye-t,

you still amaze me.
Do you really understand what it meant when the bible said "after/according to the order of melchizedek"?

This was in reference to a priest who has an endless life; not a list of priests in an order.

Heb 7:15-16
(15) And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
(16) Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

The boldened part of the above verses shows the highlight or the point of the "order of melchizedek".

When you see the "order of melchizedek", it refers to "like melchizedek" or "in the similitude of melchizedek", not an order or cult of priests.

reading the whole of Hebrews 7 properly would make that very clear.

And besides,I wonder why ur strong point as regards tithes is always,"it came before the law". Fine, it came before the law, but those times before the law is not the time or dispensation we operate in.We are in a new era brought about by Christ which has its own principles.


Heb 10:19-20(KJV)
(19) Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
(20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Heb 10:19-20(ISV)
(19) Therefore, my brothers, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
(20) the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh),


Heb 10:19-20(CEV)
(19) My friends, the blood of Jesus gives us courage to enter the most holy place
(20) by a new way that leads to life! And this way takes us through the curtain that is Christ himself.


We have a very brand new way provided for us by Christ. Why are we still so desperate to hang on to the old?

I think I should post an article I wrote in a blog of mine sometime last year on giving. It's quite different from the OP's.
Here it goes:

Give and it shall be given unto you…

This is a portion of the bible that is very commonly used in churches practically every time. It is very common to note in most churches that Pastors usually interpret this portion of the bible to mean; people should give money to God, or to the work of God.

Interpreting that portion of the bible to mean giving of money to the work of God or to God is very wrong. That portion of the bible came from Luke 6:38 and it goes as follows:



“Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”



Looking at this passage critically, there is nothing to suggest that it means giving of money to the church, God or even the work of God. It does not even suggest that what is to be given is money.

But what we have today is various pastors using this passage as a backing to make people give money for offerings, church projects, and also to “the work of God”.



Rather what this passage is letting us understand; when properly read, is the kind of nature or attitude that we should have as regards our relations to other people. When the passage says give, it is saying that we should have a giving nature towards others in practically every aspect of our lives. We should be able to give of our knowledge, our time, our friendship, our help, our possessions, our skills, our love, our resources, our sympathy, our personalities, our abundance, our little, etc. to the benefit of others. This much can be gathered from reading the bible passage properly and within the context it was used.

Reading the few earlier verses before the verse in question (specifically from Luke 6:27 down to Luke 6:38), it is very clear that Jesus Christ was talking about the nature and way by which we should relate with other people. This clearly throws out the interpretation given by many pastors that Luke 6:38 is talking about giving to God so as to receive from him in good measure.



Looking further through that verse, we can see that it says that we should give, and it shall be given unto us; good measure, pressed down,……. and the rest. Two major points to note in this verse are that when we give to meet the needs of others, it creates room and opportunity for others to give to meet our own needs when they arise; and it is with the same measure that we used in giving to others that would determine or be used in the giving to meet our own needs when they arise. So the way and manner by which we carry out our giving nature determines the way and manner by which others would give unto us when the need arises.

Another point to note in that verse comes from, “….shall men give into your bosom”. The point here is that men(men and women/human beings) are the ones that will give to us; which happens as a result of our giving unto them. The passage didn’t say, “…, shall God give into your bosom”, clearly indicating here that the giving in question is not about giving unto God but unto fellow men and women like ourselves.



So, when Pastors use this verse to make people give money to “God” or “the work of God”, they are clearly in the wrong and should stop doing so.

This does not mean that the bible does not encourage people to give to support the work of the gospel. The bible encourages it but according to the wish and desire of the givers and not according to the wish, desires and coercing of the Pastors. If the people wish to give to support the work of the gospel or any projects for the gospel, it should be as they can and will because the bible says in 2 Corinthians 9:7:-



“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”



This verse above applies to all forms of giving in our lives; whether to friends, relatives, strangers, Pastors, orphans, widows, homeless, poor, needy, sick, church needs or projects, etc.



People should give to whoever or whatever as they purpose and not as Pastors would want them to give. These days, we see in various churches, pastors preaching messages on giving that go against the giving that the bible talked about. We see people giving because they have been led to develop greedy and covetous natures after being taught that if they want to receive from God in abundance they should give abundantly of their income and resources. We see people giving; not of a liberal or cheerful heart, but because they have been pressured or coerced into giving by their pastors who have suave and cunning methods up their sleeves to make people depart with large chunks of their income to the benefit of the church’s treasury; methods that are not approved by the word of God(their definite defense would most certainly be “the end/need justifies the means”).



Pastors should teach the truth about giving and receiving and stop deceiving people with their selfish schemes. The bible has the truth about giving. The Pastors should propagate that truth. They should then leave their congregation or people to make choices of their own on when, how and why they should give.

If needs have to be met in the church, a very acceptable way of handling such needs as regards giving, is for the pastors to mention the needs to the people/congregation and then encourage the people to give as each of them purpose to give; which is of a cheerful and liberal mind, and they should leave it at that. If the pastors have done the proper and right work in instructing the people about the word of God and also encouraging them to study it regularly, giving to meet the needs of the church would come naturally and easily of the people. If the giving meets the needs, to God be the glory; if the giving falls short of the needs, to God be the glory, for God will always supply our needs according to his riches in glory through Christ Jesus(Philippians 4:19).



Just another exposition that I thought I’d put down for the benefit of everyone who is a Christian