₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4872099#msg4872099 date=1257502566]It baffles me too! some even said "in their church they dont give offerings"[/quote]Tonye, if a Pastor; maybe after his sermon of the day, came up and said,

"Er, . . fellow brethren, Tony had a situation at home which led to his spending all his entire cash on the issue.
At the moment, he doesn't have anything between now and two weeks to come with which he can make ends meet.
I just wanted to let you know so,in case you can do anything to help him out during this period, it would be appreciated."

And then, throughout the period of those two weeks, various members of the congregation helped Tony out with what they could,

wouldn't you call that giving or making offerings? Or is it the offerings that people drop in the offering baskets that go around every service day in most churches that you want to limit as your case of offerings?

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4872167#msg4872167 date=1257503144]And to you Mr.Ttalks,

listen up and listen very well, if you want to continue acting childish, we all can go on arguing over the next 40threads, but as matured as we'all claim i feel its high time we know our individual opinions on this topic. if you claim you have written all you know, then why dont you check at the door, maybe a better folk can come up and say all he knows, afterall have you written in details as i have? cant you collate all your posts and make them 1 post, so everyone could understand your case better.

And about Viaro's views believe me they are simply terrific, i have appreciated his posts/comments time and time again,we all must not have the same opinion on an issue, afterall thats why NL is here in the first place, i have learnt alot from him too, same for Zikky;s post who appears to be slightly for/against tithing, at least he writes and even come up with passages from the bible. but as for you, Kunleoshod, and chukwudi44 all you've been doing are slammings and nothing more.

i challenge you Ttalks to come up here and write all you know about tithing, else pls remain silent as cowards do even though you aint one [/quote]You are really a piece of work, Tonye.

Can't you remember the times I did provide verses of the bible to back up my arguments?
Also, can't you remember that I said that I was not going to say anything anymore as regards my views on tithing since i had said all i wanted to say and it made no difference in your opinion, so there was no more point?
You can't remember that? ^^

All I'm doing here on this thread is to read what others are saying and to make observations/note/comments about the trends or position of things being put forward.

If that's too much for you to handle, I can't do anything about that.

lysaa:
whether tithing is of the new or old testament, what's there in giving a tenth of your increase to God?

There is nothing wrong in giving any portion of what you have or get to God(which is really to people who have need).
The only thing wrong is for people to label it as a mandatory requirement on people.
People are to give of what they have when and how they please in relation to the needs on ground.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4871893#msg4871893 date=1257499971]Ttalks you see you've gotten a doze of what you deserve, why cant you come up and provide a claim that tithing isnt relevant than going around and saying unnecessary things

Be a man bro! and write a full post about everything u know on tithing and its practise.period! [/quote]Tonye-t, I do not need to write any post on tithing. Combine everything I've said on this thread about it and you have my views.

Again, why don't you and viaro dig it together on this issue as to whether tithing is obligatory or not since you two are obviously on different boats about that?
I've suggested this before and there hasn't been any action towards that.

I do sense that it is a fear of being at loggerheads with someone whose views are similar although not completely in agreement with yours.

Viaro,

maybe you do not understand what i mean when i say focusing on both sides.

It is very clear that when a point comes up from the side of those who do not regard tithing as necessary in the christian faith, you readily respond with your own post.
But when Tonye-t comes up with his that point to obligatory tithing which he does every once in a while, you do not respond. As I said earlier, you initially provided some response, but later shelved it to general notes on being against mandatory tithing.

What would be recognizable as clear focus on both sides is adequate and direct responses to both sides of the arguments(Tonye-t's and those against it).

That's what i want you to understand from what i said.
You do not need to analyse or dissect my posts; what would be appreciated is taking what i said in good stride even if it doesn't seem to go down well with you and actually show that you are doing what needs to be done.

Remember, actions do speak louder than words. You could say you have done this and done that. Fine! let's see it clearly; live and direct, at least from now.

Viaro,
Reading ur continuous focus on what shouldn't be focused on is getting pretty tiring.
It seems u just want to show superiority over arguments rather than deal with the issue at hand.
When people say u are pilgrim.1, ur methods applied here or should i say ur focusing on loopholes or weaknesses in others' arguments, serve to buttress that assumption cos there is no recognizable difference in her methods and urs.

This is what results in more and more pages of dragging over the same thing.
Debosky has repeatedly said you should focus on Tonye-t's claims and forget about ur disagreements with him. I too have hinted that earlier on somewhere on the thread.

Tonye-t believes it is an obligation within the new testament to tithe. A lot of us here have disagreed with that.You also seem to disagree with the obligation issue but are not making any effort towards showing it to the OP.
You tried to once but left it off; the energy u're putting into non essentials would be worth it in the essential(what Tonye-t's claims imply).

Please, leave off these non essential arguments and focus on the point of the thread.
If you don't it could imply some things:

- you believe it is obligatory even when you say it isn't.
- you would rather argue for half truths rather that the whole truth.
- you are on a campaign against people who don't tithe because they know it is not obligatory but would not campaign against those who feel it is obligatory.

As regards the last point above, I realize that you are always ready to fight against inconsistencies or incomplete truths. This should be directed both ways and not one way as it has been so as to show balance or the fact that u aren't favoring one side against the other as ur claims put you in the middle or the gap between the two sides.

Tpia IDIOT:
I am a prsotitute in Invercagil but i still go to church every sunday, so there is no difference from what you see in the club and what you see in the church.

bawomolo:
lol who is this alias

It most probably/likely is banom.

Obalende:
i tried to read them but the articles were too wordy - it was tending towards that God appointed some to heaven and others to hell which i disagree with strongly.; the guy has no authobiography so I dont give much credibility to such guys.

Yeah, the articles are very lengthy(he himself attested to the fact that some of them were up to 40-50 pages as he wrote them).
But,really,if one has the time;they're worth taking time out to read.

As regards your disagreeing with what the articles were tending towards, I think u should check out his understanding or belief about hell.
Maybe then,u'll see reason to why some things are the way they are.

Romans 8:9
9. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

2Co 3:17
(17) Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord's Spirit is, there is freedom.

Obalende,were u able to read the articles in the link I provided?
How did you find them(that's if u've read them)?

[b]Quote from: Zikkyy on October 31, 2009, 05:38 PM[/b]Let me quote an example of how we remits to Christ below.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (NIV)

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4846402#msg4846402 date=1257168309] is that all that there is to giving to God, giizzzzz , Zikkyy [b]whatever happened to the gifts and help Paul enjoyed of the gentile christian[/b]s, at least he would have told them to go and only give it all to the poor and widow and then they'll be certified as giving all and all. Men this is not funny at all [/quote]It astonishes me that Tonye-t cannot see that the two instances given here compliment each other properly.

The passage posted by Zikky was talking about giving to people who had need(not exclusively the poor and widows and orphans;but anybody who had need at any point in time).

The gifts and help Paul got/enjoyed of the gentile Christians met his needs when he was in need didn't they? Paul had needs and who ever gave to take care of his needs when they came up definitely was doing what was being pointed out in the passage Zikky quoted.

I wonder why Tonye-T sees them as different things *The length at which people go sef *

Tonye-t,

it seems u've fast become a waste of space.

So, u're trying to tell me that u do not know that the confusion debosky mentioned was in ur regard?
You don't have to become an irritant and pretend not to see and understand what people are saying.

My double posting was simply due to the fact that I used my phone to post and it some how resulted in rendering my post twice; so I modified the other into what u saw.

I've noticed a trend with you. You really enjoy making mischief.
You want to draw people into getting angry or annoyed with you so as to explode into insults which u would now use against them later.

Sorry I can't be drawn into ur cesspool of mischief.

That aside, I repeat what debosky said; you are indeed confused.

Melchizedek's period - we have a high priest and Abraham(no levite).

Aaron's Period - we have a high priest(Aaron) and levites(priests).

Jesus's period - we have a high priest(Jesus) and us(priests). If u want to suggest that priests are levites, then we all are levites.

I wonder who we have a command to take tithes from?

Maybe the dogs,cats,goats, . . . . . . .

Just had to delete the double post . . .

Note/Observation:

Tonye-t keeps advocating that he does not tithe according/based on the Mosaic law.
But from what he's been saying(recently),one kind of gets the impression that he isn't sure of what he claims.
- he uses Matthew 23:23 as a point to buttress his claim forgetting that the tithe Jesus spoke about was that according to the law.

- he says pastors are the levites according to the order of Christ forgetting that the levictical process on tithes was according to the law.Abraham's tithing which he claims to be his example,didn't require any levictical process.

Hmm, . . . do I detect a double standard here or maybe ehm . . . . .

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4817566#msg4817566 date=1256746985]And i am still standing on the fact of Matt.23:23,

[size=14pt]"you should show mercy yes, you should be faithful yes, you should show fairness yes, and you should also tithe yes" (Hebrew- english paraphrased version)[/size]

now those this verse seem like a voluntary statement i ask?

Nice to have you back, aw u dey na? [/quote]I have been alright and still am.

I'm not going to argue that Matthew 23:23 with u cos I know I wouldn't make any headway;we've been through that before.

Instead, I'd rather you and viaro thrash out the differences in ur opinion as regards whether it is compulsory for Christians or not(since u guys favor tithing howbeit differently).

I know viaro has tried to do that earlier with u but that got lost in the midst of other banter on the topic.

Observation/Note:

For Viaro, tithing is not compulsory but voluntary.

For the OP; Tonye-t, tithing is compulsory since he believes it is an injunction on Christians.

Conclusion: The argument/fight is against the latter's position and not the former's.

Obalende,

I get where u're coming from.

Just like u, I do not subscribe to the general and everyday way people regard and interprete the things of God.
If u're honestly seeking answers(not trying to make a point) I think I can suggest a site which might make things clearer for u.
The questions u ask are very reasonable ones and I think u'll find answers to them all.

N/B: The info passed across by that site is not accepted by close to 98%(in my opinion)of Christian folk but to me, it makes sense in the light of everything.

Here it is: Some answers for u.

I'll advice that u take ur time and go through all the topics under the "Lake of Fire Series"(scroll down the home page to see them) one by one before u make any firm conclusions.

Compare these two portions of scripture:

Rev 20:12-15
(12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
(13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
(14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
(15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

1Co 3:11-15
(11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
(13) Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
(14) If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
(15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Make ur own conclusions there.

Do you know that the very popular belief that burning in hell for eternity might not be so?
Do you know that (yes there is the Lake of Fire) this hell which is well known might not be what everybody thinks it is?
Do you know that the stuff said in Revelations are very symbolic stuff and not literal stuff?

Hell is not as everybody is making it out to be.
True it is a place/period/realm of torment but it is for a time and for a reason.

It was put there so what happened could happen.

Finito! Ok?

Isaiah 45:7

viaro:
Nice.

Obviously, I quoted the ESV on Matt. 5:17 - "I have not come to abolish them". However, your help in distinguishing between 'destroy' and 'abolish' is quite appreciated.

Now I may not know what meaning chukwudi meant for his bold statement that Jesus "abolished" the law. And if I take your meaning, it would seem queer to draw the inference you made; because I have not found anywhere in the Bible where the Law was given as a "requirement" in terms of our salvation. What then happens to those who were never given the Law in the first place? This is why it would be difficult for me to hold the view that the Law is "no longer" a standing requirement - because it was never that in the first place!

But thanks for your helpful inputs (it would make me search a bit more on the subject). However, all points considered, it appears that we're saying the same thing: Jesus did not come to 'destroy/abolish' the Law, quoting Him directly from Matthew 5:17.

I never meant that the law was a requirement for salvation.What i meant to imply is that:

Without the law, there wouldn't have been any knowledge or indication for the need for salvation through Christ.
That's what it means by saying; the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ

Based on what i said above, the law is abolished(meaning it is no longer a requirement) in the life of a Christian.


2Co 3:7-14
(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.

Also, the law still exists(meaning it isn't destroyed)to continue its purpose of pointing/bringing people to Christ.

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Viaro,

Jesus didn't say,"I didn't come to abolish. . . ." .
Instead he said, "I didn't come to destroy. . . ."

Abolish in greek - καταργέω - katargeō
Destroy in greek - καταλύω - kataluō

They are two obviously different words with different meanings,although almost similar.

Abolish in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - making no longer a standing requirement towards a particular purpose (we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within).
Destroy in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - demolish,disintegrate (but we know this isn't the case of the law since it still serves it purpose to bring/point people to Christ).

Gal 3:23-25
(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[b] to bring us unto Christ[/b], that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The words in bold can be seen as the purpose of the law; . . . to bring us to Christ..

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Just as Pastor AIO said, it was to fulfil the purpose of the law that Christ came; so that we could be in/with/through him.

Verse 25 of the galatian passage shows strongly that after that purpose has been fulfilled, we are no longer under the law.
This means we do not need that law to function.

The life in the Spirit(life in Christ) is a life superior to that within and by the law of Moses.
It is an advanced level; we do not require the stuff of the beginners level(law of Moses) to function, . . .we can only remember/treat the beginners level stuff as we progress in the advanced level(life in Christ,through the Spirit) as the stuff that got us to the level which we currently are; in Christ.

Our life in Christ or the way we are in that life is a response to the Spirit and not obedience to written laws.
We do not respond to the law of Moses; rather we respond to the law of Christ which is written in our hearts.

The law will and can only serve its purpose; . . . and that is to bring people to Christ, not lead people through Christ. 

Funny ain't it?

whether the story lacks substance or not, it is a fact that "fathers" in the catholic church here in Nigeria sexually molest/abuse young girls.

I personally know someone;a girl, who was molested sexually here in nigeria by one of the priests of her parish for close to two years when she was between the ages of 11 and 12.

She hasn't made it public yet;I'm the only one she has told so far.
I convinced her to report the case so something should be done about the priest or else,other young girls would be subjected to the same trauma.
She agreed but is yet to go public with it.

KunleOshob:
Evidently you and your pastor are more learned in things of the spirit than Apostle Paul whom the lord personally called and taught his will. Delusion at it's very best convoluted tongues

And it is this same Pastor Chris that said James did not understand the things of the spirit when he wrote the book of James.

Truthonly:


Get real guy!

Look at you ! What do u mean by get real?
Isn't what i put up a fact?

Even, look at verse 48.Where u a witness to the things that happened then?

Isn't that strong indication that some things in the scripture were not in reference to you?

You can't just lump everything up and say they refer to u or us.

Truthonly:
Wow, please divide the word to me. I'd like to know which one isn't inspired of the Spirit of God

Thank you in advance.

So you do not know that there were references in the scripture that were specifically to some people;such as the apostles? 
You think everything there was in reference to you?

eg.
Luk 24:45-49
(45)  Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
(46)  And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
(47)  And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
(48)  And ye are witnesses of these things.
(49)  And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

There are other stuff in the scriptures that are personal to certain situations occuring then. And also references in the scriptures that were nothing but greetings to specific people.

You can't build doctrine on somebody's wishes for someone else.

Truthonly:
Fine then;

1 Prosper - ?
2 Be in health - health
3 Your soul prospers - spiritual well being

Wow there were actually 3 prayer points there.

Ok guy lets wrap it up;

Zechariah 1:17

17-Cry yet, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem

Remember, Paul was erudite in the things of the law, however he had not the spirit and that is the unlocking key to the revelations of God. Brother dont be a student of the letter, but be a student of the Spirit; for the letter killeth, it is the Spirit that gives life.

Do u really know what that phrase means:"the letter killeth,but the Spirit giveth life"?
You seem to be the one guitlty of the letter in this case.

Truthonly:
Wow!

2 Timothy 3: 16-17

16-All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rightousness

17-That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

Therein lies ur problem; the inability to determine what really is God's word to us,those through his apostles,and finally the hopes and wishes of the apostles.