₦airaland Forum

The summary of all I've been saying is this:

Giving ten percent(tithe) of your income based on how you determine personally is very good.
The only time it becomes a problem is when it is given according to the law.
What do I mean?
When I say those who use Malachai 3 to back their tithe giving, I say they are doing so based on the law because:
[list]
[li]They believe that if you tithe, the windows of heaven will open and pour u out a blessing and so on and so forth - Malachai 3:10[/li]
[li]They believe that if you do not tithe, you are robbing God and then would not have the devourer rebuked from ur land/finances - Malachai 3:8 and 11[/li]
[/list]

Those points above existing in Malachai 3 stand to show that if u tithe, u reap a blessing; if u do not tithe, u are robbing God. That was the situation under the old covenant.

But we know in the new covenant, if u tithe (that which falls under the giving in the new covenant), definitely fruit would abound to ur account; also, if u do not tithe, there isn't any devourer that would exist in ur finances and you would not be robbing God. This is because tithing under the new covenant is seen as a voluntary type of giving and not as that highlighted in Malachai.
That in Malachai had positive effects for paying it and had negative effects/circumstances(robbing God/devourer ever present) for not paying it.Which makes it mandatory cos nobody would want any negative effects/circumstances.
Anything mandatory always has positive effects for carrying it out and negative effects for not carrying it out.
But something that does not have negative effects for not carrying it out is not mandatory but voluntary.

Which is why using Malachai 3 to buttress or support any kind of tithing in this dispenstion would pertain to coersion.
Using Malachai 3 as a basis to tithe would be tithing according to the Law because it contains both the blessing for doing it and the consequences for not doing it(robbing God,devourer not rebuked).

Only if the negative aspect isn't highlighted when using that portion of Malachai 3 to talk about tithing would one say coersion isn't being used and then say it isn't according to the law.

Now, I feel I've said much about this tithing issue and I think it's quite enough.My points might have gotten through to some,it still might not make sense to some.But it is left to every individual to try to do what is right pertaining to this situation.

Anyone who feels like finding out more as regards this tithe and giving issue can read this book: Tithing,Giving and the New Testament.


Its quite a lengthy book but it really has useful info.


@pilgrim.1,

It really was an experience debating/conversing/communicating/dialoguing with u.
I hope our convictions always help us to maintain the truth.

Also, I noticed in another thread that u're into IT. That's my field too and I'm loving it; although it could be tasking on the brain sometimes.

Take care.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810509#msg3810509 date=1241229505]This presents a problem. I wonder where it is taught that the 'old covenant' ever justified anybody? It seems to me that "justification" was not one of the purposes of the 'old covenant', considering such verses as the following -

[list][li]the Law of Moses could not justify anyone - Acts 13:39[/li][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' - Gal. 3:11[/li][/list]

Seeing this is the case, I'm really concerned when people assume (or seem to infer) that the 'old covenant' previously was the basis for "justification" until the new covenant was established. In that case, it gives the idea that there are two grounds of justification in Scripture: (a) one by the old covenant; (b) the other by the new covenant.   Yet, it is evident that the collective testimony of Scripture does not presuppose that any man was justified in God's sight on the basis of the Law or 'old covenant'. If there is such a verse actually teaching justification at any time by the old covenant, please share and I shall gladly consider it (perhaps I've been terribly mistaken).[/quote]This is the result of the justification which existed through the law(Note:it isn't the true justification as we know through the new covenant,but it is a justification in itself)

Deu 28:1-14
(1)  And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God [b]will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
(2)  And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.
(3)  Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.
(4)  Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
(5)  Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.
(6)  Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
(7)  The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways.
(  The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
(9)  The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.
(10)  And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
(11)  And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
(12)  The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
(13)  And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God,[/b] which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:
(14)  And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.


Deuteronomy 29:12-13
(12)  That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:
(13)  That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Deuteronomy 30:15-16
(15)  See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
(16)  In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.


For justification through the old covenant, the people had to hearken unto (do all) the commandments of the Lord.
God giving them the promises for hearkening shows that they were expected to hearken and reap the results of hearkening.
Doing all the commandments would show they hearkened and make them justified under that covenant.
But the problem is that they never could hearken completely and that is why they couldn't be justified within that covenant.
The old covenant was conditional; it required the response/doing of the people as regards what it commanded for justification.

The thing is,in the dispensaton of the old covenant or while the old covenant was in force,the people were justified before God if they kept the commandments.

But now,in the dispensation of the new covenant, people are not justified by keeping the commandments, they are justified by having faith in Christ.

It was on the basis of the impossibility of being justified under the old covenant(because the people could not do what was required) that the new had to be put in place.

Hebrews 8:7
(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The old covenant had fault in the sense that it expected the impossible from the people for it to justify them based on what it required.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810509#msg3810509 date=1241229505]Wait a mo. If "justification" was at all possible at any time by the 'old covenant', what then was the need for a 'new covenant' to come and do the same work? Does this not make the case simple that the 'old covenant' never justified anyone?

The case you're trying to make here is no different from your initial position, part of which was your stating that:

[list][li]"Putting the law at an end does not mean it is destroyed or abolished. it simply means it is no longer required for our salvation.[/li][/list]

And my answer to that was: "The Law was not given at any time as a requirement for our salvation." Whether it was "salvation" or "justification", neither of them were purposes of the 'old covenant' - and the case is no different as repeated here.

Once we are able to grasp this simple fact that the Law was never at any time given for "justification" (or "salavation", then we more easily see why there's no reason to say that "it is no longer required for" such things, for it was not the basis of such things in the first place.[/quote]I think my response above deals with this.


[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810509#msg3810509 date=1241229505]Third, what made the old covenant 'operative' (or "enabled" was not the Ten Commandment or anything written. No, not at all. Remember we already have dealt with this very point, and I shared that what made a covenant to be operative and effectual was what ratified it. If the words of the covenant had only been written and read to the people, it was as ineffectual as if there were no covenants at all! That is what Hebrews 9:17 - "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth". Following this, it goes on to say:

[list]Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you" (Heb. 9:18-20, ESV)[/list]

Indeed, I agree with you that the substance of the old covenant was its contents - i.e., what it declares. However, what "enabled" or put it into force or operation was the very thing that ratified it: the 'blood of the covenant' (again verse 17 - "otherwise it is of no strength at all". It was not their obedience or disobedience that "enabled" the covenant; rather, it was its ratification by blood that did so.[/quote]I know it is the blood of the covenant that ratified the covenant or "passed it into law" as said in legal terms.
But remember,the covenant was conditional.
Fine,the blood ratified it, but it still required action from the people for its promises to take effect in their lives of for it to be a part of their lives.Action in the sense that they do what it requires.
If it wasn't ratified, it wouldn't even be a covenant,so why would the people even be considering following something that isn't ratified?
So, my point is not in what made it a covenant, but in what the already ratified covenant expected of the people for its promises to take effect.
If the people did not do what the covenant expected, they couldn't reap what it promised.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810511#msg3810511 date=1241229536]A very good point. If I may ask: what then is "evil" in giving a tithe of our financial resources as part of Christian giving? Mind you, there are many tithers who do so without trying to fulfill the 'old covenant'; and in many instances, many of them have been led by the Spirit of God to do so. If then these Christians are tithing their financial income as an expression of their stewardship to honour the Lord, what "evil" could there be in that?[/quote]There is nothing evil in giving a tithe(10%) of our financial resources as part of Christian giving.People who do this are not doing wrong.
But those who do wrong are those who give tithes of their financial resources based on the law in Malachai 3.
Those who give tithes of their financial resources based on lies that some ministers have formulated saying that tithes must be given whenever one gets an income or gain in income(Which makes it a constant/an automatic response when an income is gotten or gained).
Giving as we see in the new covenant is not based on any "must do" condition, but rather as the person decides to.2 Corinthians 9:7.
It is not based on compulsion or neccesity.It is as the person freely chooses to.

If a person wants to give a tithe of his/her, it should be whenever he/she is moved or feels like giving such.It is not a fixed stipulation unless that person freely chooses to make it a fixed stipulation based on his/her personal decision.

In the old covenant, tithes had a fixed stipulation on the people as regards when/the time to give/pay it.Within the new covenant,whosoever chooses to tithe does so without the fixed stipulation as regards when to give it.

Within the new covenant, a person who gives tithes lets say 3,4, or 5 times in a year has not done wrong.This random no of times of giving the tithe show personal choice as to when to give it; no fixed stipulation.

A person who gives tithes 12 times in a year in relation to the 12 salaries or 12 monthly gains he/she makes has not done wrong as long as it is as he/she decided personally and not based on what a Pastor commanded or based on Malachai 3.

A person who gives or is involved in different forms of giving based on his or her choice as to how much and when and whom to give and does not give any tithe at all, also has done no wrong.

The person who does wrong is the one who gives tithes based on a fixed stipulation of time as promulgated by most pastors and also based on what Malachai 3 says and not based on the principle of giving as promoted by 2 Corinthians 9:7.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810511#msg3810511 date=1241229536]This is where you've again run into a huge problem. Let's be consistent here, biko. You have held the view all along that -

  * the 'old covenant' is the Law - they are the same thing
     (your quote: "As said before, it is the law which is the same as the old covenant"

  * as being the same thing, the Law is the 'ministration of death'

Question: if the 'old covenant' = 'the Law' = 'ministration of death', what "right stuff" are you bringing over from a 'ministration of condemnation'? Are you forgetting that the apostle in 2 Cor. 3:10 declares that the old covenant has "no glory in this respect"?

Lol, it's simple, really. If something as a whole is called the 'ministration of death and condemnation', one would think twice before trying to select some of its pieces and carry them into 'the glory that excelleth'. A 'ministration of death' is still a 'ministration of death' anyway you look at it, small-medium-or-large.[/quote]Now it is pretty clear that you've decided to abandon the explanation I gave as regards the "ministration of death/condemnation" as regards the law which I gave before.
If u still have that explanation in view, u wouldn't ask this question.
The attempt of trying to do what the law requires is what makes the law the "ministration of death/condemnation" because that attempt is a futile one, and thus results in the negativity contained within(the results of not hearkening/doing what he law commands).
But what the law promotes is not the "ministration of death/condemation".It promotes the "right stuff" that I refered to.


[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810511#msg3810511 date=1241229536]First, tithes were never established as a "requirement" anywhere for one's salvation - whether old or new covenant. Those who tithed before the Law were not doing so in order to be "justified" or "saved" or to "enter" into any covenant with God.

Second, the practice of tithing is not "based" on what the Law says - rather, the Law incorporated tithing that was already in existence long before the emergence of the nation of Israel. Like I said, what the Law did not originate, it cannot annul as if they both had a common history.[/quote]Those who tithed before the law did so based on their own personal decisions and not on a commandment or law from God to do so.

If the practice of tithing is not based on the law but is based on people's personal choice and decision as to when to give it,FINE.
But we know that most of the preachers of today don't preach this.
Rather they make most of their followers to tithe based on the law;using Malachai 3 as their back up.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810511#msg3810511 date=1241229536]The new covenant does not promote any type of giving as a "requirement" for service - it is men who make "requirements" where there are none. This is why many people who argue againts tithes would always think of it as a "requirement" or "obligation" - and many people who tithe become confused all the more. This should not be the case.[/quote]Look at my last response above.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810511#msg3810511 date=1241229536]You seem to dismiss it simply because you haven't taken the time to understand what it means or the principles in the NT that point to tithing, not as a "requirement" of service, but as a response to what the apostle taught.  Look closely at 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 and think about what the apostle was alluding to - it may throw some more light on the subject for you.[/quote]1 corinthians 9:13-14 does not refer to tithes, it refers to the proceeds of what is gotten from the "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free","not based on the law" giving which includes the right tithe giving not the wrong tithe giving which is based on the law.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3810511#msg3810511 date=1241229536]Shalom.[/quote]

I'm beginning to see signs to bow out of this debate cos my points just ain't getting across.

When the bible says "done away", that does not mean destroyed.It has to be understood in terms of what the covenants stood for.
When the bible says the old covenant is done away with,it simply means it does not serve as a requirement by God for justification.
It's purpose had been fulfiled.
The old covenant pointed to the raising up of a new covenant.That was all it stood for;it was there till the new and perfect covenant would come.
The old covenant only serves to point to the need for the new covenant.

Now, you say how can we say the ten commandments have been done away with?
The ten commandments have been done away as requirements for us to be in covenant with God.The old covenant was based on these ten commandments and the conditions for enabling the covenant to be constant was obedience to its requirements.
The new covenant does not require us to obey the ten commandments for it to be effective in our lives.
All we need to do within the new covenant is to obey the Spirit of God.  Romans 7:6.
How do we obey the Spirit of God?
By simply following what the Spirit teaches as expressed in the new covenant;found in the doctrine of the apostles.
As Christians,we do not need to make sure we are obeying the individual commandments in the ten commandments.
As long as we love our neighbours as we love ourselves,we're fine.

This is what Christians need to know:
Gal 5:16
(16)  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

When we walk in the Spirit, we would not fulfil the lust of the flesh(doing the stuff that is sin).
It is those who do not walk in the Spirit that need to be mindful of keeping the individual commandments.
Those in the Spirit do not need to bother themselves because the fruit of the Spirit will always be good and never evil.

Gal 5:22
(22)  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Back to "ministration of death".As I said earlier,the bible calls the ten commandments/law/old covenant the ministration of death.
It was called so because the law/ten commandments/old covenant could not give life but only brought death because it was very certain
that no man could keep the law perfectly due to the nature of sin in man.

The law in itself was good,but in its whole embodiment,as regards what it requires of man;which was impossible due to man's nature,made it a ministration of death.

An instance:
In a jungle,the very best food which would provide the best nourishment for the jungle clan resides upon a tall,thin, edifice
rising out of the middle of a crocodile infested river.
The information about what this food can do to those who get to eat it makes people within the jungle clan attempt to cross the river with the dangers lurking within.
The natural thing happens and the crocodiles feed upon those who attempt to cross the river.
Now,those of the clan that did not make the attempt do desire the food but because of what is involved ,they can't get it.
So, in their usual conversations about the food,the process of getting the food is termed "an attempt of death".
The food is good but the requirement to get its wonderful attributes is called "attempt of death."

It is this mind boggling and impossible situation about the law that Paul was highlighting in Romans 7:14 down to the end.
It explains why the law is regarded as a ministration of death;because the nature of sin in man makes it so.

Any area in the new covenant highlighting a law of the old covenant should not be surprising because the new covenant is promoting the right stuff and if a law in the old covenant does promote the same right stuff, it definitely will play a part in buttressing the doctrine it promotes.

Now,the new covenant does not in any way promote tithes as one of its requirements and as we all know,the practice of tithes is based on what the law says.
If the new covenant had in anyway promoted tithes as one of its requirements of service, there would have been no problem.
But it does not so there is no point trying to find a way of letting it remain within the covenant when it was not put there in the first place.

I think I should redefine what a covenant is in relation to laws

A covenant is an agreement.
The laws are the terms and conditions by which the agreement is upheld.

The old covenant which had its foundation in the ten commandments was God's agreement with the israelites.
This agreement had terms and conditions by which it could be upheld and these were the laws given by Moses to the people after
giving them the ten commandments.

Deuteronomy 4
12 And the LORD spoke to you from the heart of the fire. You heard the sound of his words but didn't see his form; there was only a voice.
13 He proclaimed his covenant—the Ten Commandments—which he commanded you to keep, and which he wrote on two stone tablets.
14 It was at that time that the LORD commanded me to teach you his decrees and regulations so you would obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy.



The ten commandments were the agreement; the laws that followed were the terms and conditions/decrees and regulations of the agreement and made up the embodiment or body of the agreement.
The ten commandments were the head; the laws were the body.
All together, they make up/made up the old covenant.

The ten commandments were/are the law of Moses.They represent the old covenant.Every other law that was given after the writing of the ten commandments were given based on or in line with that covenant.
We cannot seperate the law/laws from the old covenant.
Together they make up a single unit.

Just a little addition:
The ten commandments could be looked at like a constitution.
The laws which came after them are like laws which are enacted or made based on the constitution.
The ten commandments are the foundation of the the other laws.

Again, I repost the following chapter:

2Co 3:1-18
(1)  Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
(2)  Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
(3)  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
(4)  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
(5)  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
(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:
(8  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.
(12)  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(13)  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
(14)  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
(15)  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
(16)  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
(17)  Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
(18)  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Look at verse 7.It says the ministration of death was written and engraven in stones.
The question we should now ask is:
What was written and engraven in stones?
Answer: The ten Commandments,which is the old covenant/what the old covenant is built upon.
Here we see that the ten commandments are refered to as the ministration of death.
They are also refered to as the ministration of condemnation in verse 9.
They are also said to have been done away in verse 11.

And you ask how could the law be against us/How could it be contrary to us?

It was against the israelites because they could not keep to its requirements;hence it became a ministration of death since there were curses for not being able to keep the requirements.

pilgrim.1,

If you agree that the law comprises of the ten commandments and the other laws, then I find it hard to understand why u do not see that the law and the old covenant are the same thing.

Look at the following verses:

Exodus 34:27-28
(27)  And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
(28)  And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:12-13
(12)  And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
(13)  And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Deuteronomy 9:9-11
(9)  When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
(10)  And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
(11)  And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the[b] two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.[/b]

The passages highlighted above show that the ten commandments were the old covenant.
The ten commandments were the old covenant;the other laws/precepts that followed were commandments within/under that covenant, altogether comprising the Law.

pilgrim.1,

Your response to my question was quite helpful in understanding ur view.

Now, if you could still indulge me once again:

Are we in agreement when one says that the law comprises of the ten commandments along with all the other laws in the old testament?

Colossians 2:13-14(KJV)
(13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Colossians 2:13-14(NIV)
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

pilgrim.1,

What is the handwriting of ordinances/written code with its regulations?

pilgrim.1,

Don't try to do a word play here.You know that one word can mean different things in diferent contexts.
When I said the law was not abolished, it was within the context that some people felt that the argument against tithes was suggesting that the law was destroyed.
When I said the law was not abolished,it was within the context that it meant being destroyed(annihilated,rendered into non existence).

So I never in anyway contradicted myself.

Your approach is quite similar to that which atheists use against the Christian faith when they see two passages seemingly contradicting each other.

To ur question as regards what was being abolished in 2 cornthians 3: As said before, it is the law which is the same as the old covenant.
Maybe I should ask you: What is the old covenant?
The chapter in question already lets us know that the law is the old covenant.At least we know that it was the old covenant that was abolished.
So if this chapter is saying that the law is abolished after showing how it is the same as the old covenant,what then are we talking about?

You say God established a covenant with Abraham without law.Perhaps u need to check that part of the bible again.
What do you think all those things God told Abraham to do were, if they weren't some form of laws to uphold the covenant?(Genesis 17)

The old covenant started with Moses,not before him.Any other covenant before the old covenant had their own rules which are their laws.

I'm not going to go into a discussion of tithes before the law because that is an overflogged issue.

Again,I say it: The law and the old covenant are one and the same.It has been abolished(put at an end since a new covenant is in place.This does not mean it is destroyed but it is no longer a requirement for Christians).

pilgrim.1,

You have a fine way of making ur points.But still,u are not right in ur submissions.
I noticed in one of ur responses that u distinguished the old covenant from the law;as in,them not being the same thing.

As I said before, a covenant is an agreement and the law within the covenant is the principle or rules by which that covenant is upheld.
Without one u can't have the other.
Without the covenant,there would be no law;without the law there would be no covenant.

Going to the bible,the Law represents the old covenant/testament and vice versa, so it is safe to conclude that the law is the old covenant.

The chapter below makes that more evident:

2Corinthians 3:1-18
(1)  Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
(2)  Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
(3)  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
(4)  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
(5)  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
(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.
(12)  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(13)  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
(14)  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
(15)  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
(16)  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
(17)  Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
(18)  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.


Look at verse 6 to the end.
It clearly shows that the law represented or is the old covenant(the letter,ministration of death written and engraven in stones,ministration of condemnation,that which is done away)

You say there is no where the new testament discontinued tithes.
Going through the whole of Hebrews 7, it is very clear that the commandment that brought about tithes as practiced today was disannulled because the law had been changed.
So if the law that commnded a practice has been changed or discontinued,should that practice continue?

pilgrim.1,


It is very clear that tithes are of the law and we are not obligated to keep the law.
The new testament has its laws and that is what we keep.
The new testament upholds aspects of the law but not all.
The aspects upheld by the new testament as indicated in the new testament are part of the law of the new testament,
so we have to uphold them.

Those aspects of the law not upheld by the new testament(tithes inclusive) are not to be upheld by Christians.

What is a covenant?
A covenant is simply an agreement.
The laws are the principles or rules by which an agreement/covenant is upheld.

The old covenant had it law/rules.
The new covenant has its own law/rules; some of them including/mirroring certain rules/law of the old covenant.
So, Christians are to keep the law of the new covenant, not the law of the old covenant.

What are the laws of the new covenant?
They are those which Christ commanded under the new covenant and those which his apostles laid down through the doctrine they preached.
Tithes are not part of the law of the new covenant.They are part of the law of the old covenant.

This is the main and only valid reason why there should be arguments against tithes in the world of Christianity.
It isn't and should not be because of any form of coersion or force on the payment of tithes.

And besides, Act 15 make it clear that the apostles never commanded Christians to keep the law of Moses(old covenant):

Act 15:23-24
(23)  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
(24)  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Romans 3:31 does not suggest we follow the law; it only points out the fact that the law is powerful/established/recognized in the sense that it was God that instituted it and also because it pointed and led to the new covenant which completely replaced it(not joined it).

Heb 8:6-13
(6)  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a[b] better covenant[/b], 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.
(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.

All the law had to say or all the laws under the old covenant are for those who are under the law:

Romans 3:19
(19)  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


But Christians are not under the law:

Galatians 5:18
(18)  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

What then is the purpose of the law?:

Gal 3:19
(19)  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was added because of transgressions but only till Christ came to establish the new covenant.After then, it was no longer necessary to those who were in Christ through faith.

In what way is the law useful today?:

1Timothy 1:8-11
(8  But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
(9)  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10)  For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(11)  According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Ephesians 2:11-16
(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:
(13)  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
(14)  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
(15)  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
(16)  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


2Corinthians 3:6
(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.

Just some more verses showing that we as Christians are not obligated to do the law.

pilgrim.1

From all you've said, I can only see that the only way to lay this issue about tithes to rest is to show that Christians are not obligated to keep the law.Because tithes are clearly of the law.

Romans 7:4
(4)  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.



Galatians 3:17-26
(17)  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
(18)  For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
(19)  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
(20)  Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
(21)  Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
(22)  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
(26)  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


Romans 7:6
(6)  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Acts 15:1-11
(1)  And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
(2)  When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
(3)  And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
(4)  And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
(5)  But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
(6)  And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
(7)  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
(8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
(9)  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
(10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
([/b]11)  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Act 15:23-24
(23)  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
(24)  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words,[b] subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

These are just a few verses showing that as Christians, we are not to keep the law.
We only have to follow the law of Christ which is contained within the new testament/covenant.

Tithes are not part of the law of Christ.

segyemaro:
They are ok,but do most ladies wears these?

Now you agree that they are ok.
So therefore, the issue should not be:"Women should not put on trousers".

Rather, the issue should be:"Women who put on trousers should wear them in modest manners".

Modesty is the issue, not the attire.

I could highlight an example:

If a lady puts on a bra and a panty and goes out in the streets like that, she'd be considered crazy,called a slut,etc.

But would that make the attire(bra and panty) immodest/sinful attires to wear?
Of course not.

Now,if this same lady were to put on the same bra and panty but this time under regular clothes and then go out in the street; she'd be treated as a normal human being.

So, the problem is never the attire but the manner in which it is put on.

https://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/Shopbop/pcs/media/images/products/mktok/mktok2006623064/mktok2006623064_prod_zoom_front_v1_m56577569831179276.jpg https://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/startracks/070827/jessica_alba.jpg

Segyemaro,
How about these ladies?
Aren't those feautures u're worried about covered?

Wouldn't u call these modest dressing/trousers or would u call them immodest?

https://www.blazerdepot.com/new%20blazers/brown-suit.jpg

Now Segyemaro,
Would you call the trousers this lady above is wearing "not modest"?
Does it in any way highlight the features you mentioned?

Now,Segyemaro,
the trousers u just described,if the woman/women wearing them put on tops or gowns over them that hide those features u highlighted, would u still have a problem?

segyemaro:
I dont think women would want to drop the idea of wearing trousers,cos its already part of them. They wont mind to go on hunger strike than to stop wearing trousers. All i know is that its not biblical for a woman to put on men wears. Our so called pastors would not preach this so as not to lose their members. They are all caused by them bicos even their dear wives cant do without wearing trousers. Thats why God said that His judgement would start from the church.

Segyemaro,

You amaze me sometimes with ur logic.
It's so easy for u to say that tithes are of the law and find no place in the new covenant(which I agree by the way), but it is not easy for u to see that the commandment in the bible forbidding women wearing men's stuff and vice versa is also part of the law and not in the new covenant.

The new covenant preaches moderation and modesty in everything; dressing included.
You CANNOT tell me or any other person that all the trousers women put on are immodest.
There are modest trousers which they(women put on) or modest ways of putting them on,
and there are immodest trousers and immodest ways of putting them on.
That is just the case.

1Timothy 2:9
(9) In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

The above is the verse in the new covenant suggesting how Christian women should dress. It does not in any way condemn modest trousers unless you have very good evidence to prove that there is nothing like modest trousers or modest ways of putting on trousers as regards women.
What it does condemn are immodest trousers,skirts,tops,etc.

segyemaro:
Still laughing? Why?

eghosaobas:
May be he don kolo

You guys amaze me.
If you do not understand the sense of humor that I denoted from those two posts combined, that should not be ur problem.
We are not wired the same way.

MERCADO:
well, if i caught my girl friend in such act, i will do away with her, foir i hate anybody who is engaging in such thing. anyway, i will not hesitate to leave her.

and then

origina9ja:
wettin be this

These got me laughing so hard.Infact,I'm still laughing.

@todak,

You just don't know.

Matthew 23:23 does not in anyway promote tithe paying. if you do honest bible study, u will see that it does not in any way promote it.

That verse itself clearly makes it clear that tithes are part of the law. Christians are not under the law.

You mention Matthew 5:17

If you view that verse in isolation, you will definitely have the limited view u have on it.

We are not under the law as Christians but under Grace.When u aren't under something(law),u are not subject to it or its tenets.

Christ fulfilling the law was just that; fulfilling it. He didn't abolish it; he only fulfilled it,put it at an end as a requirement for salvation, and established a new covenant as the new requirement for salvation.

The terms old and new speak volumes even without going into much deliberations.

Putting the law at an end does not mean it is destroyed or abolished. it simply means it is no longer required for our salvation.
But it is there for us to understand the pattern that led to our salvation; that's all it is as at now.
The new covenant has all that is necessary for us to live a proper life in Christ.
The old covenant/law is there for us to understand some things but not to be implemented in our lives.

An example(might not be good enough but shld help a bit):

A movie has two parts. You watch part one and it comes to an end.
You remove it from the player and put in part two.
As part one has come to an end and is removed from the player, does it mean it has been destroyed?
No.
But it is always there for one to view so as to understand the events in part two as regards how
they came about  
But it is no longer necessary for the completion of the story the movie is portraying.

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

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

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


Galatians 5:18
(18)  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Tithes are confirmed to be of the law(don't come up with Abraham and Jacob cos that has been explained times without number) and we as Christians are not under the law.

Romans 3:19
(19)  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

The law of tithes is in relation for those who are under the law which we Christians aren't under.

You say tithing is a way to appreciate your spiritual leader/pastor. Fine, if that's what u feel go ahead and practice it but do not expect us all to flow with ur feelings or opinions.
Christians operate based on the truth in the bible,not opinions derived from it.

There are so many ways which people can appreciate pastors that do not have to be tithes.

Giving 10% according to the teachings of the law or based on the law is downright not Christian.
But giving 10%,more than 10% or less than 10% as a person willfully and freely decides at any point in time without any law backing it or expectation following it is purely Christian.

Throw away all the so called prophetic revelations urging u to marry the new guy.

For you to marry somebody,u have to know the person,be friends with the person,like the person and also progress into making the decision to love the person.
But,to make that final decision about marrying the person,u have the bible to consult to give u the pointers on what is expected by God from a person in terms of his/her life and character and relationship with God(these points are even the things that should help or guide u into taking that decision to love the person).
These are the things u need to apply in making the final decision.

Don't depend on dreams,visions or prophecies to make this decision.
Your heart working in perfect harmony with God's provisions in the bible is all you need.

This is a completely overflogged irrelevant issue.

The simple fact is this:
The trousers men wear are men's clothing.
The trousers women wear are women's clothing.

Who on earth authorized trousers for men alone?

Where the man wears the trouser that is meant for a woman, he would be considered crazy,hence such can't and shouldn't happen.
Where the woman wears the trouser that is meant for a man, she would be considered to be out of her mind,hence such can't and shouldn't happen

Besides, trousers are easier to wear and handle for women when on the go as opposed to skirts.(mounting bikes,rising to elevated points,climbing,jumping or scaling obstacles)
So,all in all,this is a non existent issue.

The only things that should be issues in this respect are:
Are women being modest in the type of trousers they wear(form hugging,skin tight,body sculpting,panty/butt exposing trousers)?
Are women being modest in the type of skirts they wear(hip hugging, bottom enhancing,thigh grasping,short length,high slit skirts)?
Are women being modest in the types of tops they wear(cleavage revolution,bust gripping,see-through tops)?

debosky:
What makes the 'PM News' article 'authentic' and the second Thisday article non-authentic.

It sounds like you have chosen what to believe and will brand anything contrary to that as 'lies' or a 'cover up', but anything that supports your assertions will be regarded as factual.

People come out and make ridiculous claims all the time, so without any concrete proof, this is mere speculation.

What exactly have the 'redeemed people' passed on to the public in this case? The three articles mentioned show no reference to a redeemed official, so how do you know that ANY information has emanated from them?

It seems u do not get the gist or the heart of all this scenario brought about by the redeemed jet.

Whether true or not so true;the articles pinpoint the existence of some certain things which unless they are successfully and properly debunked by what the redeemed people have to say,they will always be the current and most available facts about the redeemed jet.

If they remain silent about it,it pinpoints a lot of possibilities; a major one being: Silence is an admision of guilt.
If they do come out to make a public statement about the situation, investigations can also be carried out to verify the authenticity of their statements or claims.

We all know that there's never smoke without fire.

GOD, and GOD alone knows the true fact.

Not complete.
God and the top redeemed management know the truth.
The problem is that what the redeemed people are passing on to the public does not seem/sound/look consistent with the current facts on ground.

hubreality:
Hi No2atheism, your opion is welcome. You're wrong to say i'm defending pastor Chris, Christ Embassy or any pastor. I have this same title "Night of Bliss with Pastor Chris" as an article on other sites to reach out in love by the power of Holy Spirit. Several testimonies have been recorded from more than 20 countries to the glory of God. I'm not religious in any form. The Holy Ghost is my best teacher and guide. It's evil to see some religious folk who lack love and faith in them who write falsely against anyone.
I do not need a prophet to accertain a true man of God since i'm filled of the Holy Ghost and present Living word of God.

Kai !

hubreality:
I love Jesus, my Lord of Hosts who sees the very intent and state of every heart. Religion is a disease among men and He kicked strongly against it in His days. I do not worship any man of God since I know that all that I will ever require is contained in His Word(Scriptures) and the ministry of the Holy Ghost at work in me. Yes, there are some men of God who have inspired me greatly in Truth and in the Revelational Power of our Resurrected Christ not mere stories of religion. Seven Fold Increase in Grace, Ability, Knowledge, Fortunes, Wisdom, Speed, and Accuracy to Dr. David Oyedepo, Chris Oyakhilome PhD, Rev Simon Afolabi, Pastor Enoch Adeboye, Kenneth Kopeland, Anita Oyakhilome, and Gloria Kopeland and many others in Jesus Name, Amen. We are in era of His Word Power and the Holy Ghost. They that know their God shall be strong and do exploits. Hallelujah!!!

Upon everything No2Atheism said?
Kai!

Hmmm,

Who knows what to believe about all these.
I smell a cover up.
When u look at the first info on this redeemed jet, and then look at these so called 'fresh facts', one might say there is a crossroad on what to believe.

But again, if u look at this article published sometime last year,
what then do u feel?

mazaje:
it is very clear that you are a dishonest person you intentinally ignored to quote the verse from the thessalonians.

@mazaje,
I see u really do not get things.I quoted the verses of 1 Thessalonians as described by the author of the post(rich_john) and they included verses 16 and 17 0f chapter 4.Verse 15 was not included.It was from these same verses that u made ur initial comment about Paul.
Now u accuse me of being dishonest?
Man,u really do not know what u're talking about.You can't seem to follow things as they are.
But,be that as it may,even if u include verse 15,it still does not change anything.You still simply do not understand the use of grammar/english language in those verses.
Since ur understanding of the language is obviously very limited,u definitely cannot make proper conclusions.
So there's no point in trying to make u understand what it was saying or what other topics are saying.
It is up to u now to get a better understanding of the use of the english language.

mazaje:
there is no word like the rapture in the bible, the rapture from popular christian fiction that is largely extra-biblical or the ambiguous christian eschatology that attempts to rewrite and ignore jewish eschatology. paul clearly expected this event to happen in his lifetime, as he obviously counts himself amongst the living. since this obviously did not happen then, that makes paul a false prophet because his prediction was not 100% accurate. In the I Corinthians passage, we again see that paul fully expected to be one of those alive when the events happen. In fact, in both this passage and the I thessalonians passage, he is quite positive that he will be alive to see it. again, his prediction did not come true. He is therefore, a false prophet. so the conclusion can be summarised as

1. paul made a prediction of an event that would happen in his lifetime.
2. paul's lifetime expired without the event happening.
3. paul made a false prediction.
4. since the prediction is false, the event will not happen.

I'm beginning to see that ur understanding of english language is ur problem.How can u honestly read those passages and say Paul expected to be alive when the event takes place?Does that wrong understanding of urs agree with what Christ said about the time of the event in matthew 24:36?
Maybe I should post those verses here for u to read and understand:

1Th 4:16-17
(16)  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
(17)  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1Co 15:51-58
(51)  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52)  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(53)  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
(54)  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
(55)  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
(56)  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
(57)  But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
(58)  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.


Mat 24:36
(36) But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.