₦airaland Forum

Could the people who believe that God did not create the "white man" and those that believe that the white man "created God" please put heads together and discuss. Not that this thread isn't wierd enough as it is .

pilgrim.1:
1 Timothy 1:8

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.

1 Timothy 1:9 ~ knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person

I begin to grasp that as "bodily exercise is to godliness", so is doctrinal/theological excellence to knowing The Lord.

Discussions around the law, whilst not without merit, are far from where we need to be.

pilgrim.1:
The going's been good all the same. How's yours coming on?

Fine thanks.

Truth is, I've had something of a paradigm shift - although not overnight - in my comprehension of the gospel and hence in my walk of faith. It's profoundly affected the way I view and understand scripture.

There something of the "Fear & Trembling" about me and my walk now.

How's you and yours?

God bless
TV

Hiya Pilgrim.1,

I'm well thank you very much for asking. Just taking leave from posting, although I've stopped by to "have a look" most days. I've followed your various discursive forays on the board. My, you have been busy . Hope you are not letting your zeal for theological learning interfere with your studies.

Take care Miss.

God bless
TV

Missing me Pilly ?

Ah, ah? How could you omit Reverends, Presbyters, Popes, GO's, Daddy' and Mummy' in the Lord, Prophetess to the Nations, Covering Apostles, Metropolitans, Regional co-ordinators, Conference heads, ad infinitum, ad nauseum!!!!

@Pilgrim.1,

There is absolutely no shame in realising and admitting your error. Please take it to the nth degree, I'm here.

Please demonstrate the decency and integrity whose absence you so decry in others and respond to my my post - #26 - of today.

Trying to ignore it, pretend to read contradiction in my statement and insinuate that I'm looking for a way out has become tediously characteristic of you.

You called me out, initiated the thread, set the tone and posed the questions. Went puce when at first I thought better of it and now that I've taken out the time and effort to clearly ouline my position - based on scripture & with the utmost decorum- and contrast it against your own, you immediately revert to type and try and make it a gutterfight.

You appoint yourself judge and jury and you still seek recourse to improvised technicalities. All your promises to "walk us through", "enlighten" and "educate". So tan? Is that it? A quick road block and excuses of being busy ?

So, post #26 please, if you are willing and able that is.

Thanks & God bless
TV

Hi Pilgrim.1,

My position is clear and has been repeated often enough.

The law is fulfilled at the intent level, not necessarily by slavish adherence to the letter.

As the Lord always fulfilled the intent, adherence to the letter is of no import.

If you want out, please say so. In fact you don't even have to say, just stop posting. There is absolutely no need to pretend you don't know my position or feign ignorance of my particular perspective.

If I say "The Lord broke the law" it can mean only one of two things within the confines of this discussion.

1. based on my stance ~ the letter or the intent.
2. based on yours, which makes no such distinction ~ the totality.

I post on that basis, and clearly outlined this in my last post. Read it as such and if you still don't understand, be sure to ask.

The weathered ploy of claiming "contradiction" is not in the spirit of this discussion my dear, although in letter terms you frequently resort to it as a delaying tactic . The end is nigh!

And please, focus on the questions in my last post. Thanks.

This particular dance is niether new nor appealing. Try another one.

God bless
TV

_{Pele 0 about your "busy schedule", se you'll find time before Xmas ?}

Good morning Pilgrim.1,

Appreciate your posts. As ever in response I shall try and be as brief as possible and posit scripturally based points as I understand them.

I could choose to drag this out point by point, but I suppose it will be more beneficial all round if I cut to the chase.

Please reconsider what the Law said, and not what anyone was "considering" as work. The Law clearly qualified the type of work that should not be done on the sabbath - and that was SERVILE work (Num. 28:25)! We would have to consider all issues according as we find them clearly enunciated in the Law, instead of accepting "gracefully" even though the Pharisees were wrong!

Please TV01, I just want to learn this of you: is there a difference between mere "work" and "SERVILE work"?

I asked you this very question in a previous post, as you used it without defining it. No problems, I will show from your posts and from scripture that a definition serves no purpose, unless one insissts on reading something into it that is not there and serves only to muddle things. And I'm sure that's not your intention.

At the present, I'd like us to address the current issue about your allegation that the Lord broke the Law. You cannot be claiming two very opposite things and making them the same.

Breaking the Law is not the same thing as Fulfilling that same Law; for if at any point He broke the Law, that would mean that He transgressed the Law - and you would not then be speaking of a Saviour without sin!

TV01, let me ask you these two questions:

(a) do you acknowledge that 'breaking' the Law constitutes the very same thing as 'transgressing' the Law?

(b) do you then acknowledge that the Lord NEVER broke the Law since Scripture testifies He was without sin?

Again, I will answer your questions - even though mine were not - and still proceed to show why your position is wrong.

a.
Yes, breaking = transgressing.

b.
I acknowledge that The Lord never broke the law.

Pilgrim.1, you stated this;

pilgrim.1:
Indeed, "carrying a burden. . is work" - and we find a warning to "bear no burden on the sabbath day" in Jer. 17:22. But we should note again that there's nothing to indicate in Matthew 12 that the Lord or His disciples were "carrying a burden".

And subsequently asked this

pilgrim.1:
However that may be, I still await your explication to show that the Lord actually broke the Law or had acted "UNlawfully".

Scripture shows this;

John 5:5 Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" 7 The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me." 8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your bed and walk." 9 And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath. 10 The Jews therefore said to him who was cured, "It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed." 11 He answered them, "He who made me well said to me, 'Take up your bed and walk.'" 12 Then they asked him, "Who is the Man who said to you, 'Take up your bed and walk'?" 13 But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." 15 The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

The Lord acted as follows;

1. Healed a man on the sabbath
2. Told a man to carry his bed - bear a burden - on the sabbath day
3.Declared His healing as "work"
4. Made Himself equal with God

I'm sure point 4 is a moot point for us, and for this discussion, as we both acknowledge His Deity. But on points 1 and 2, the law was clearly broken. And on point 2, broken as you yourself have clearly stated.

For those who understand the difference between the "letter" and the "righteous requirement", there is no issue or contradiction here.

You have insisted that there is no such dichotomy, so whtever appraoch you take - and as long as it's honest - you cannot fail to see that the "Pharisees" rightly declared the law to have been broken.

Your insistance that to keep one means having to keep the other and to void one means to void the other, leaves you with the conundrum of having to accept that the The Lord broke the law, whilst at once claimin that He was a sinless saviour. Or deny what scripture clearly states and introduce yet another dance to the mix. I hear no music.

I would rather leave it there, but one more point before I conclude

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Pilgrim.1,

1. How can those without law - who do not know it or have never had it delivered to them - be righteously judged and condenmed by it?

2. Likewise, How do those whithout the law - who do not know it or have never had it delivered to them - do the things in the law and righteously fulfil it?

God bless
TV

@Pilgrim.1.

Thanks for the prompt response.

I am somewhat mystified why you would quote Deuteronomy 23:25, as that is in no way - specifically, generally or in context - impinging on the law relating to the sabbath.

I must also say here that you are implying that the Pharisees were "incorrect" in their charge that the disciples of Christ were acting unlawfully by plucking (which is to harvest, to work) grains of corn on the sabbath day.

The Deuternomical stipulation is one of nieghbourly kindliness - alms even - as was demonstrated by Ruth gleaning in Boaz fields, and in no way overrides the "no work" on a sabbath rule.

Further work is not defined by the use of an implement. Carrying a burden - which would not be dependant on the size of said burden or use of a mechanical aid - is work.

However, in applauding your persuasions as to why you felt the Lord might have broken the LAW in Matthew 12 (and demonstrating the same with the verses you quoted), here's WHY I rather don't agree that He broke the Law.

The letter my dear, the letter. Not the intent. You refusal to see the difference stops you from understanding - or accepting - the truth of the matter and seeing the deeper meaning.

I'd like you to see that Jesus actually chose the Sabbath day to go "through the corn". But then, He also had Deut. 23:25 in mind when He chose that very day. Was "plucking the ears of corn to eat" on the Sabbath day considered a transgression (breaking) against the Law? I don't think so - for the following reasons:

Re your quote above, you seem to claiming to know exactly what was going through the Lords mind - party to the divine plan - at the time? Funny, the Lord never mentioned that scripture in response to the Pharisees charge? He spoke about sacrifice and mercy, the very same concept of letter and intent, word and requirement that I have been trying to outline.

(a) the Law clearly stipulated that plucking the ears with the hand and eating it in the field
   was quite a different thing from moving a sickle to the standing corn (Deut. 23:25).

   (b) it would be WORK to harvest with a sickle, take the harvested corn home, and then to
   prepare it for a MEAL - as you quoted in Exo. 16:23.

   (c) that the Lord Jesus chose the Sabbath day to go to the field does not contravene the
   stipulation of Exo. 16:25 ("let no man go out of his place on the seventh day". WHY? For
   the simple reason that people moved about on the Sabbath day, because it was required of
   them to do so by the same LAW - ("And on the seventh day ye shall have an holy convocation;
   ye shall do no servile work. " - Num. 28:25)

   (d) that they did not transgress the Law is obvious because they did nothing forbidden by
   the Law - such as:
      * to kindle any fire (Exo. 35:3)
      * to bear any burden (Jer. 17:22)

In turn;

a.
The poor and needy were by this stipulation allowed to "glean" in the fields of their wealthier neighbours. Imagine if they were permitted to go in with harvesting implements and containers, and then cart the produce away? Would that not be a travesty. that stipulation was about alms. Being limited to plucking manually and eating while in situ, meant the provision for alms was not abused and in any event it was not a provision that overrode the sabbath stipulations.

b.
Wrong as above. It was considered work on the sabbath if any activity was carried out to prepare - be that harvest in the field, transport to the home or cook - on the sabbath day.

c.
Exodus 16:25 and beyond disproves your claim. It clearly shows that the act of "gathering" - by whatever means manual or mechanical - was considered work.

27 Now it happened that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, but they found none. 28 And the Lord said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

d.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What was forbidden by law was work. Gathering, plucking, collecting, whatever, were all considered work. You have to refuse to see that or your position falls apart. Kindly accept gracefully.

Now it is interesting that Num. 28:25 clearly qualifies the type of work theyr were forbidden to engage in - "SERVILE work". Unless anyone has a reason to assume that plucking corn with the hands was the same thing as harvesting with a sickle, there is no reason to assume that the Lord and the disciples "BROKE" (transgressed) the Law. To allege that He "broke" the Law, one might have to explain HOW that affirms that He fulfilled the same LAW that He broke (Matt. 5:17).

How does this read? You say "servile work" was forbidden, without actually saying what servile work is. You then state a tautology about manual work with or without implements being different, so?

You go on to say He fulfilled law. As previously requested, please explain what you understand by the term fulfil, and how was the law fulfilled by the Lord?

If there's something I might have inadvertently overlooked, I'd be glad to consider it.

Overlooking is not the issue here, it's honest interpretation.

God bless
TV

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Hope all's well with you .

A few references to the Sabbath as requested to show that no “work“ was permitted (noting that there are different types of Sabbaths, of days, of weeks, years and high/special Sabbaths. I'm sure you'll agree that the distinctions have no real bearing on our discussion, or you'll show why if they do.)

Food preparation – be that in the field or the home – was considered work and had to be done prior to the Sabbath.

Exodus 16:23 - Then he said to them, "This is what the Lord has said: 'Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.'

Even the Lord in supplying manna did so only for 6 days, and only during these 6 days was collection and preparation allowed.

Exodus 16:25 - Then Moses said, "Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, there will be none." 27 - See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day."

Any type of work on the Sabbath was considered a contravention of the law.

Jeremiah 17:22 - nor carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, nor do any work, but hallow the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.

I trust that suffices for now, I've tried to keeop it short and scripture based. I humbly await your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks very much.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
There are several questions I have left you - and if it would be asking too much, please bring them HERE and discuss them. Much appreciated.

If you "left the questions", please restate them clearly and succinctly here and we have lift off. I don't want to endlessly to and fro or have to cross-reference other threads. Just trying to keep it tight. Thanks.

cgift:
pilgrim and TV, you guys should calm down. Are we fighting for Jesus? I know certainly i will come up with a decisive rider to kill this issue once and for all. For now i am still reading the views of all. Let's nevertheless be civil in our language.

@Cgift please put up!

@Pilgrim.1,

pilgrim.1:
How is healing on the sabbath day a "contravention" of the written code? Do you see how ridiculous you can sound atimes and often? So, in order for the Lord to NOT have contravened the Sabbath, He should not have healed on the Sabbath? You're a true son of the Pharisees.

Healing or plucking ears of corn on the sabbath are both a contravention of the law as any kind of work is forbidden on that day.

Till the present day, strictly orthodox Jews do no work on the Sabbath, as it is considered a contravention of the law. Food for consumption on the sabbath is prepared beforehand. I'd guess you know this, so I'm not being tedius just to note.

Labelling me a Pharisee - as funny as that is - merely demonstrates your inability to grasp the simple message here.

The Pharisees - who were also being addressed in Matthew 23:23 - knew that the actions of the Lords disciples - plucking corn ears - was contrary to the written code, as was the Lords "work" in healing on the sabbath.

Now, if in 23:23, the Lord rebuked the same set of people for slavish devotion to the same law while missing the intent, how is it not a contradiction - and hypocrisy and law-breaking - if His own disciples break the letter and He does not charge them accordingly?

My position is that as long as the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled, all is well.

Yours is that the law is the law is the law. No distinction between the letter and the "weightier issues", one cannot be voided without the other and one cannot be kept without the other.

Therefore, it follows, that the disciples contravenenig the written law by working on the sabbath was breaking the law. For me it was the written code and not the intent,hence no problem. Your position says to "break one is to break both or indeed, as there is no distinction, the law has simply been broken.

The same follows for the Lords healing, which is considered work under the written code. Please read and respond as follows;

~ Was any type of work permitted on the sabbath?
~ Was the disciples plucking action or the Lords healing not considered work?
~ Did the Lord consider wether His disciples or Himself to have contravened the law?
~ Why did He not rebuke His disciples as He did the Pharisees in 23:23 who kept the law?

I''ll keep this one short to bring somes sort of order and focus the discussion. I'll trust you'll attempt to do likewise.

Thanks

God bless
TV

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Good. Please answer the questions I offered on the same Law HERE.

This is a new thread. For clarity and continuity, I suggest we avoid "carry overs" and having to endlessly to and forth between threads. Please ask any questions you wish to, stating briefly and being as specific as you can. Can we perhaps start one question at a time. Thanks.

If you learn to address me cordially, you will find me a pleasant discussant.

I have done nothing but in this thread. None the less I am not concerned by pleasantries or nasty asides, and they are in a sense both alike to me. My interest is in the meat of the discussion. As long as you bring meat, I don't mind shaving off the fat.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Please don't evade this thread

I responded didn't I?

pilgrim.1:
tediously deflect the other threads with the same arguments about the Law.

If the law comes up, will I ignore it?

pilgrim.1:
This is the reason why I opened this thread since you have evaded the same request endlessly.Cheers.

I have evaded nothing. Moreover, I have stated my position clearly. If you have a point of difference you'd like to discuss, please say and I'll be happy to do just that.

pilgrim.1:
Please, take all your concerns and arguments about the Law from the other threads and post them here so we could deal with them.

Again, I am happy with my understanding of the applicability or otherwise of the OT law - written code - to NTC. I'm sure there's still lots for me to learn, but I haven't heard anything from you to make me rethink the little I do understand. As for "concerns", I have none, if you think our differences are cause for concern, please state specifically "How & Why". If you would then like to discuss any aspect of my position. Please say and I'll be happy to respond.

God bless
TV

_{Only 2 posts in and you've already labelled me tedious and evasive ?}

@Pilgrim.1,

Your whole position boils down to a refusal to see the proper context of this;

And that was what the Lord told them in Matthew 23:23, not so? TV01, wetin do you? Keep denying the WORD - you hgo answer before the LORD.

That's the same lullaby that hasn't yet waxed in your defences, which unfortunately collapses in the face of the meaning of Matt. 23:23.

Once you properly contextualise it and realise Jews under the law were being addressed here, you have nothong left. End game.

God bless
TV

Dear Sister Pligrim.1,

I have no particular concerns about the law. If however you would like to discuss any aspect of it, especially from a NTC perspective, I am more than happy to join you. I'm sure I'll be edified. I defer honour to you in kicking off. I look forward to an "aspersion free" and honest discussion.

God bless
TV01

_{I do realise this forum/thread is not the exclusive preserve of Pilgrim.1 and/or myself. As ever I covet contributions from any interested parties or those otherwise willing and bable to share.}

@ Pilgrim.1,

Nothing new or original from you. None the less, I continue.

He did not. Since you're so convinced that He did, please show the same - and then explain HOW you could still be speaking about a "SINLESS" Saviour - despite the fact that He categorically stated that He had not come to "destroy" the Law and the prophets, but rather to FULFILL.

The Lord healed on the sabbath, clearly a contravention of the written code of the law.

If, as you insist, the written as well as the intent are still applicable, that suggest's the law was broken. You have repeatedly stressed one cannot be voided without the other. Please explain how you see the written code as not being broken.

He did not. Since you're so convinced that He did, please show the same - and then explain HOW you could still be speaking about a "SINLESS" Saviour - despite the fact that He categorically stated that He had not come to "destroy" the Law and the prophets, but rather to FULFILL.

Can you please do so as simply?

The written code - healing on the sabbath - was clearly broken. Not to mention his disciples did likewise by plucking ears of corn and The Lord did not charge them or side with those who did. Additionally, The Lord cited the instance of King David breaking the law, again with no charge.

And yes, and simply. As the intent - mercy - was plainly adhered to in all cases, righteousness is fully satisfied.

Maybe it would help if you explain what you inderstand by the use of the word "fulfill".

I did not introduce your confusion about a "written code" - you did. Do you care to please explain that to your reader?

Again you play to decieve. You have clearly distinguished "divine principles" inherent within the law. If the law is the law, is the law, with no distinguishing between letter and intent, why do you make this distinction. Or is it just another instance on your anal taxonomy ?

Second, I don't find the Lord reprimanding the Jews in Matt. 23:23 for their not keeping or keeping a "written code". I have repreatedly and consistently instead offered that He reprimanded them for their hypocrisy at "partial obedience" of the WORD!

I cannot legislate or be faulted for your failure to see the meaning of that verse, or your inability to harmonise the scriptures in their entirety to understand the bigger picture. All I can do and have done, is to submit my understanding.

Ask King Saul, obedience is either in full or nothing. And if there is such thing as "partial-obedience", it is not called hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is claiming to do/be/say one thing, while doing/being/meaning something else.  Point in question, keeping the letter of the law, whilst wilfully ignoring the intent.

Another inconsistent bloviate. While admitting He did NOT break the Law, you still came down to argue that He did!

Trust you to search out, spot and leap into semantics. I have made the distinction between letter and intent clear. The written code was not adhered to. Don't try and fudge issues by wilfully misreading me. Endless, tiresome and endlessly tiresome. New ploys please !

I'm sorry, TV01. You clean up your mess after you. Since I did not argue your obsessed contradiction, you'd have to come explain HOW He both "broke it Himself" while earlier admitting He "did NOT break it". You're so good at making nonsense of your proposition that keeping one's fingers crossed for you is a waste of resources that could be channeled ealsewhere

The usual. No solid answers, meaningful insight or even basic understanding. Resort therefore to calumny and wilful misrepresentation. Thanks Pilgrim.1 for your introducing[b] "Tabloid Theology" [/b]. It takes a certain type. Repeat after me, letter/intent, written code/righteouss requirement. I doubt that it'll stick though

I've been honest and consistent all through. Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 simply teaches that you do BOTH! You cannot excuse one under the brigand argument that it is "written code" and then disavow the OTHER by fallacious excuses that you have not been able to defend. The Lord said there as clear as can be: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." That is the very thing you have been denying repeatedly, and yet been unable to defend your assertive denials.

That of course brings us neatly back to Matthew 12. If  23:23 insissts you do both, The Lord clearly broke the letter in Ch12. By your reckoning that makes Him a lawbreaker please explain this conundrum for the understanding of the forum.

And remember you wrote this;

I did not introduce your confusion about a "written code" - you did. Do you care to please explain that to your reader?

If there is no dichotomy, howbeit the word "both"? Both of what? If the law is one, how do you come about saying one must do this - tithe - and the other - mercy, justice - if there is no distinguishing or difference between them?

Please kindly show here or in the new thread HOW He broke the Law.

I have said/shown it severally, and do avoid your usual theatrics will emphasise that it was the written code that was broken. As follows;

1. Disciples plucking ears of corn on the sabbath -fully supported by the Lord
2.Condoning King Davids breaking the law
3. Healing on the sabbath

Please explain how and why if I am wrong and the letter of the law was not broken in any of those 3 instances. Briefly now. No buy 1 get 6 free ripostes thank you very much .

Pilgrim.1, Your position is fundamentally wrong. But added to that you are scurrying around, patching scripture together, misinterpreting verses and overlooking the glaringly obvious just to prove a wrong premise.

God bless
TV

@Pilgrim.1

Another of yur merry dances. What was it? Limbo, belly, yahoozey, makkosa? Whatever!

My question again;

He was not and never did address issues of law observation to Christians. He even broke the written code - Matthew 12 - clearly showing it's the intent, not the letter that matters. If you suggest that He was not voiding the letter, then you claim He committed sin. Oya, explain to the forum !

The Lord Jesus did not condemn His disciples plucking - working - ears of corn on the sabbath.
The Lord Jesus healed - worked - a man with a withered arm on the sabbath.

Did The Lord break the written code or not?

If as you insist the letter and the intent are both still valid and niethere nullified - as you have repeatedly and insistently claimed is the case in Matthew 23:23 - please explain how you can believe this and honestly say you consider the Lord to have been sinless during His time on earth.

Obsfucation such as the following answers nothing.

Indeed He was not voiding the "letter" in Matthew 12, neither does that then mean that I "claim" He committed sin. I think it is only fair to not allege such issues against me before you ask for answers.

What happened is clearly outlined. Please explain it.

(a) pilgrim.1 does not believe that the Lord voided the letter or broke "the LAW" in Matthew 12. Let's be clear about this. From the onset the Lord Himself indeed cautioned that we take heed to not misinterprete what His mission was about. Here:

   Matt. 5:17
   'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
   I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'

His coming fulfilled the prophets.
His Life fulfilled the law. By not breaking it and dying to it he could not be held by death. And redeeming those who put their faith in Him from under it.

Yet clearly in Matthew 12, by verse 13, he had condoned breaking the written code, endorsed the same being done by someone else and broken it Himself. Please explain how he did so, yet remained sinless. Simply please. No 7 lengthy, obsfucating, avoidance posts .

If ever I took that unfortunate misinterpretation that many people now level against Christ, I would indeed have sadly joined the sorry crowd in that allegation. No, the Lord did not "void or or break the Law" as many now teach.

As I asked originally, did the Lord break, endorse or condone the breaking of the letter of the law in Matthew 12?

If you say Matthew 23:23 demands keeping the letter and the intent, whatever your protestations to the contrary, you are saying just that. Be true to thine own self, if not to us.

(b) my second reason was that if He ever did "void" or "break" the Law at any point, you would not be speaking of a "sinless" Saviour. Anyone who broke the the Law at any point actually was sinning against it (1 John 3:4). No, my Saviour perfectly fulfilled the Law at every single point - including the issue in Matthew 12.

Your denying the obvious in order to lay claim to your error strewn doctrine and the Lordship of Christ. The letter was repeatedly broken in Matthew 12. I earlier introduced the "mercy not sacrifice" verse, as ever you failed to do your homework. bad girl  .

Now, I know you asked particularly in reference to whether He "voided" the letter of the LAW. However, the idea that He voided the letter of the Law is meaningless - because that suggests an unhealthy concern for the "letter" but still does not address "the LAW" itself. The necessary question therefore for me would be: Was Christ voiding THE LAW or rather the LETTER of the Law?

Please re-read and rephrase this , as you are making absolutely no sense here. You claimed my question was wrong and then said you rather it was reworded, as my exact same question .

I'll allow you the benefit of the doubt, or lay it to my own misreading. I won't attempt a PhD thesis on the back of it !

What then would be the difference between the "letter" and "the LAW" itself?

The law has both letter and intent. There is the Letter of the Law and there is the intent of the law. The intent is timeless. The letter as the means of attaining to the intent is redundant.

No, the Lord was not "voiding" the LETTER of the Law in Matthew 12; because that would simply mean that He was at the same time voiding the Law itself - whether by "letter", "written code", "code", or whatever else you choose to describe it.

Please see the preceeding responses in this post. And be sure to swot up before you reply !

If you're not clear, I'd look forward to further queries.

I don't think you are in any position to be taking queries on this point or at this point .

Much appreciated.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim,

Hello. I posted once #72 and you posted 7 times in response Wierdly enough, a good deal of that was dancing around semantics and wilful misreading of what I have consistently posted. Hmmmmm.

NTC do not attain to any of the blessings in Christ by slavish adherence to a written code. The grace that comes through faith in Christ Jesus, enable us to keep the righteous requirements of the law. Please note the distinction between said requirements and the written code.

Your limbo dance around a wilfully decietful reading of something I posted is characteristic of you, and a sad reflection of the depths you will go to to "win" as opposed to open yourself up to the clear leading of the word of God .

Read the verse yourself. Paul quoted from the LAW (Deut. 25:4) and argued that the verse he quoted was written "for OUR sakes!!" Not only so, he went on to use that same argument from the LAW to the point that the Lord had "EVEN SO" ordained that Christians have the responsibility to financially support those who preach the Gospel!

Run around in the burning sun and your likely to collapse from heat exhaustion. Support of those who "preach" the gospel is predicated on their circumstances. If they are indeed itinerant or dislocated and cannot reasonably be expected to earn a livlihood sufficient to care for themselves and any family, they should be supported. Those who "teach" in the local congregation are not to be treated differently from any other member of the body. That is they should work to support themselves and their families, and if they have a need, as much as possible it shpuld be met by the congregation, just like for any other non-ministering member.

Paul worked when he was not itinerant and relied on gofts or went without when he was not. He also worked at a level far below his pedigree and vocational training. Keep pushing for a salaried clergy, it is not found in the scriptural blueprint and is a man-made construct.

Since you're so way off this point and arguing an inconsistent proposition that you've not been able to defend, it's no surprise that you couldn't clearly see what the apsotle was quoting. Let that serve as another example to the point I made earlier that the LAW has divine PRINCIPLES still applicable to Christians today. NO? Then quarrel all you want with Paul's quoting Deut. 25:4 and asserting that it was written "for OUR sakes!".

Your confusion is sad, and indeed I pity you, but sometimes love is tough. Firstly, in a sense you are very right that there are "Divine Principles" - i have severally labelled that the intent or the righteouss requirement - still applicable today. Your error lies in believing and promulgating that those divine principles are satisfied by recourse to a written law.

I did not "slander" any apostle - do you care to keep your duplicity to yourself? Thank you.

Now, the apostle Paul was clear what he fought against - "circumcision" - and we read it in the NT in white and black (Gal. 5:11 and 6:15). He never preached against tithes anywhere - nor id there a hint anywhere in any verse of the NT that it was preached AGAINST! You're once again making bloviates that you have NO VERSE in Scripture to defend!

You didn't just slander him, you trashed the whole of his ministry. Thank God he had seen beyond a written code, otherwise you'd be indicted for libel !

Will you declare before all and sundry in a public forum that Galatians was all about doing away with circumcision? Circumsicion was but a metaphor for the law, as was sabbath keeping. Noting that both pre-dated the Mosaic law, and by Divine edict - whilst pre-law tithing was never by divine fiat - both enacted and both abrogated. Lets have a look shall we?

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from Him who called you by the grace of Christ, and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the gospel of Christ.

It was about a wholescale perversion of the gospel of the grace of Christ. And how better to pervert grace than by law ?

13 For you have heard about my former way of life in Judaism: I persecuted God's church to an extreme degree and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many contemporaries among my people, because I was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

Some info about his background as a Pharasaic Jew and lover of inherited - law based - tradition

Galatians 2:8 For He who was at work with Peter in the apostleship to the circumcised was also at work with me among the Gentiles. 9 When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Although Pauls constituency was mainly the uncircumcised, it was not about fleshly circumcision.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12 For he used to eat with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party. 13 Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, "If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15 We are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners"; 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.

It was about incorporating works of the law into the gospel of grace. Circumcision was a main point in question, but not the only thing. There is nothing to suggest that it was only about that. Peter also ceased eating with gentiles, in accordance with Jewish law. Label it "bloviate" all you like. Anyone who cares to read Galatians with an open heart will see it straight from the git go. Rush to the penultimate chapter and pick to metaphorical verses to remove the whole thrust of the epistle why don't you!

TV01, where in Galatians 2:11-21 did Paul "destroy" tithes? Just be honest, please - WHERE did he ever preach against TITHES?

He was preaching against re-introducing a written code in the dispensation of grace. It covered all the law, of wich the tithe was a part.

You see how silly you try to parade your off-key arguments? You had argued that tithing was a matter of "bondage", and I asked simply if the Lord Jesus was preaching bondage to them in Matt. 23:23 - and the next thing is to disregard that issue and run to Galatians 2! You're ever so desperately confusing your position, TV01.

Keep, misacribing, misrepresenting and mis-whatevering. Enforced tithing or tithing under the misapprehension of it being a divine command for NTC is bondage.

From the onset, you've been confusing yourself about "the LAW" - and up until now have consistently demonstrated your feeble mindedness to desperately snatch verses here and there and dress them together for yet a weaker proposition! The NT does not disparage TITHES anywhere. If it does, please show it as clearly, instead of snatching verses that don't negate it and pretending that you see tithes in them!

No, you are confused - or decietfully misrepresenting - the difference in keeping and applicability of the written law for NTC. Nowhere in the NT is the Law ever deliniated as you have done with your ongoing ruse of anal taxonomy. It's the Law & The Prophets, The Law of Moses etc etc. ~ The Law came through Moses, but grace through Jesus Christ ~ Which of the various stratifications you have applied to the law are not covered?

Again, is the Lords work incomplete? Which parts of the written code did He not fulfil by His saving work and the ensuing grace?

Does Romans 8:4 ask you to do ONLY ONE of what was stated in Matt. 23:23?

How blind, and haughty with it? It clearly states that the wiegthier matters, the intent - or to use your words, the divine principles - are kept not by

=> Law => Works => Flesh => Death, but by
=> Faith => Grace => Righteousness => Eternal Life

Romans 8:4 - that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Matthew 23:23 presents two things: (a) TITHES; and (b) the weightier matters.

Which ONE of the TWO did the Lord nullify? How does Romans 8:4 demonstrate that the Lord asked you to deal with ONLY ONE of them and disregard the OTHER? WHICH ONE did Romans 8:4 ask you to keep in Matt. 23:23 - and which one did the same Romans 8:4 ask you to retain?

Exactly, written code of the law & the righteous requirement of the law

Keep ranting and fail to see the obvious. Please state clearly for the board that your position is that the written code has to be kept by NTC.

If you're supposing that your fallacy could be helped by your repeated defeatist mentality to see my posts as "traditional notions", you're only making matters worse for yourself - because only losers whimper the way you do. And I've always asked such losers to deal with the ISSUES being discussed instead of the sly invectives. More often than not, it turns out that such losers only resort to such self-defeatist devices where they've demonstrated their contradictions endlessly - as if substituting rascality for common sense has helped your post in any wise!

Word count: Loser x3, defeatist x2, sly x1, rascal x1, real issues x0. True to form.

See? You fell for the noose! TV01, before you make more serious noise, simply open your Bible and read verse 14 of 1 Cor. 9! I deliberately quoted up to verse 10 earlier, because I know that you would panic if I had included vs. 14 - "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

Keep laughing at your own jokes. First, I've answered that previously and severally. Secondly comparing the law and grace does not mean making them synonymous or incorporating the law wholesale. The Lord has ordained. Is the ordinance via the Mosaic law? The principle applies. Those who are wholly seperated to service, should be supported. Your strange extrapolations and poor application are not doing you any favours.

First, the apostle refers to what obtains in the Law (vs. 10) - and then goes on to state that the Lord had ordained it "EVEN SO" to Christians! I've asked earlier that you discuss what precisely the apostle was referring to by verse 13 - those who ministered about the holy things in the Law; wnad why the same apostle in the very next verse 14 declared that the Lord had ORDAINED the very same thing in the NT!

My, you are so obvious, like I saw it coming already. If the OT law was applicable, why would the Lord ordain again in the NT. Shine eye dear!

Only blind inconsistent scholarship such as you demonstrated at the beginning of your rejoinder will fail to see the point. Again, since you've tried to cleverly smuggle in your own "FREEWILL" into the NT, please provide the verse that uses that same word, seeing that TITHES have proved to be your death knell. Don't evade that!

2 Corinthians 8:3 For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing,

Keep publishing your knowledge that is devoid of understanding and your learning that is not wed to understanding.

Plus you demonstrate your inability to take instruction and marrow deep waywardness. I specifically asked you to read that chapter last time around. No probs, you'll soon be grounded, for that in particular and the tripe that you have been spewing generally .

Death knell? Evade you? You provide nothing more than nuisance value. Your position became untenble ages ago. It's for the sake of any who may think my non-response is agreement or ceding this issue to your entirely incorrect position .

NO - The LAW is NOT WHOLESALE done away with - and I quoted Romans 3:31 to that effect: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"!

I further have outlined the meaning of the term "the LAW" in its VARIOUS contexts in the NT as including:

* the Sinaitic Law (including the 10 commandments - see Rom. 2:15)
* the Pentateuch/Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy - see Rom. 3:21; Luke 24:44)
* the specific commandments God gave in the OT - (see Neh. 9:13-14)

. . . in which case also I offered that its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:

* specific commandments
* prophecies
* exhortations
* divine principles

Attaining to the the intent by slavish devotion to a written code is wholesale done away with. It's by grace through faith, as are all the enduements of God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Your anal classification of law in "contexts" is not necessary nor used in NT teaching on law and grace. When your eyes open, please share with them at the RCCG, as they also fail to see that written codes do not engender righteousness.

Regards your Sinaitic/Pentateuch/Specific laws, which of these did the saving work of Christ not redeem us from. Briefly please.

Now, if we should argue that the "written code" has been done away with, by which you're supposing therefore that what was "written" in the Law has now been nullified, then you'd be saying at the same time that people are free to no longer pay attention to the specific commandments God gave as guiding PRINCIPLES for ALL time in the Law!!

Keep broadcasting your need for a tutor. Unable to live by simple faith in the completeness of the Lords work. Insist on adding works.

NTC do not live by faithfully observing written laws. The righteous requirements are fulfilled by the Spirit of Grace working in them. Changes in Law do not change NTC conduct, as by increasing grace, we more than satisfy any written requirements. Geddit? Can't cook, won't cook

TV01, I've been patient enough with your penchant to be accusative, forcefully read your misconceptions into my posts where they do not exist, and end up confusing yourself further. Once again, if you want to discuss the Law, open another thread and there spew all you think you know about the LAW, and I'll give you enough towel to mop up your gurgitations. And if at all you're man enough to take my challenge, please remember also to clearly state if you are persuaded that NO PART of the Law applies to the Christian today

It is not necessary for NTC to slavishly adhere to the writtren code of the OT. In fact, to do so, means to slip from grace, which is the NT way of fulfilling the righteous requirement of said code.

I believe that pretty much answers everything. Your next 3/4 posts, where mixtures of slander - no probs, you've done it to loftier beings than me - willful misreading and semantic belly aching, and generally repetitive nonsense. Forgive me for not answering each in turn.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim,

Morning, Please answer the question as posed.

He was not and never did address issues of law observation to Christians. He even broke the written code - Matthew 12 - clearly showing it's the intent, not the letter that matters. If you suggest that He was not voiding the letter, then you claim He committed sin. Oya, explain to the forum !

Thank you.
TV

pilgrim.1:
Just for the record: before alleging anything against pilgrim.1, check carefully that you're not misquoting her. Thank you.

Yes ma !

pilgrim.1:
Simple.

Just go back and read how I debated the issues surrounding that verse and fault them. Start from here! 

Oh yes, I forget how you wholly wrenched the term "presbuteros" out of it's contextual setting, re-engineered it to mean "church elder" in all instances, and then co-opted it to buttress your glaringly wrong position.

If I remember rightly you also redefined "lead" to mean "minister" and hence "care"? Or perhaps you missed the second hurdle entirely. Upshot was as "care" = "lead" women could therefore lead.

Real upshot is that in the wierd and wonderful world of those who subscribe to C&C theology, re-engineering, re-defining and mis-contextualising, means anything can be changed to fit your personal bias and pushed as gospel truth.

O ma se o!

God bless
TV

It's one of the ways they demonstrate their love of worldy things. Including it's goods and acclaim.

And for those who say that Christianity is not about outward appearance, you are correct. But Christianity will affect your outward appearance.

God bless
TV

Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ. Essentially, everything happens through your faith in, and reliance on Him.

Hope to see you there.

God bless
TV

cgift:
Well said pilgrim. Good summaries.

But wrong conclusion.

(1). Christ indeed lived under the Law (Luke 2:21 and Gal. 4:4) - and His disciples also did (cf. Matt. 23:1-3). However, the disciples transited to the new covenant upon the finished work of Christ through His death and resurrection (Heb. 10:14).

True.

(2). It is clear that Christ and His disciples supported tithing - as we read in both Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42 ("these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone". Some people are of the persuasion that the Lord never intended by those verses for Christians to tithe at any time. My answer to that is that when they can successfully void "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42), then they can as well void "tithe" in those verses. WHY? Because the Lord did not condemn either of the issues He mentioned there! If He intended to void tithes, there would definitely have been a verse in the NT categorically stating that God did NOT wish for Christians to tithe at all - in exactly the way He revealed to the apostles that "circumcision" (another practice by "the LAW" was not to be a Christian observation (see Rom. 2:29 and 1 Cor. 7:19).

Not true.

The Lord never commanded tithing to Christians. The Apostles never ever mentioned it.

The Lord commanded adherence to the law by those under the law and clarified between the letter and the intent of said law.

No one has attempted to void mercy, judgement or the love of God. We are merely free in the fullness of The Lords saving work and grace, said graince also teaches and enbles us to fulfil the intent.

A facile attempt to insist on the letter of the law for Christians as the intent remains is weak at best and lacks integrity to say the least.

A categorical statement for NTC not to tithe is unecessary, as what was instituted by law was made redundant by the passing of that same law. The demand for a categorical statement on "tithing", would demand same for every other ordinance of the law, instead - as ever - God keeps it simple.

Colossians 2:14 - having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 8:4 - that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

I could go on and on. Suffice to say, adherence to the law suggests you are not redeemed by grace and not a son of God. Added to which attempting to attain to anything by law - favour, blessings, righteousness, justification, sanctification, holiness etc - is to void your recieving it by grace.

It all depends on what you mean by "part of". However, when we carefully examine those verses yet again, we could answer this question by reflecting on another question: Are "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42) part of Christianity? To void these will simply mean that one is voiding tithe as well - because the Lord Jesus did NOT void either of them!

Keep on drumming up the falsehood "to void one is to void the other". Au contraire, that is merely your convoluted way of retaining what has been done away with, in order to support and perpetuate what was never prescribed. The intent of the law which could not be attained to by a written law has new been made possible via grace by faith in Christ Jesus. Simple. So, The Lord Jesus did void the written code. To suggest otherwise is to deny His grace, His work and His whole purpose.

That's true. In the same way, please find me the verses that said that Christ or His apostles carried "the weightier matters of the LAW" to the Church in the NT. Could you kindly and simply do so?

Your insistence on specific proclamations which are not there because they don't need to be is further evidence of your disingenous, nay dishonest, approach to this topic. If the intent - the weightier matters of the law - is love, mercy, justice etc etc, please categorically state that such are nowhere to be found in the NT or taught to NTC. ~ I desire mercy and not sacrifice ~ Please read and understand.

You see, we have to be careful when pushing ideas in order to void what God has not made void. There are many issues of the LAW (such as 'circumcision') that God did not wish Christians to be confused in the NT - and we find them well treated in the epistles.If God wished for us to do away with tithes, He definitely would have inspired the apostles to instruct us to the same effect as He did concerning circumcision! But up until this very day, tithe-opposers have not been able to produce such a verse in the NT where God categorically voided or denounced tithes as they argue.

Keep pushing the same old myths. You'll only ever snare the simple or lazy. And at least there are those who will proclaim truth.

Are you aware how many laws/ordinances/commands were contained in the law of Moses? How many of them were individually "treated" in the NT. Circumcision was a "metaphor" for the whole law. And well it was, as it also predates the law. Unlike tithing which was never instituted as a divine stricture before the Mosaic law.

Please tell us how many laws there were in the OT.
Please tell us all the OT laws that were individually voided in the NT.
Please tell us if the saving work of The Lord was complete, or if we have to add works.
If it was incomplete, please tell us which bits were and which bits were not fulfilled.

Tithing did not have to b categorically voided, it was part of the written law and hence done away with it.

If you are championing it on the basis of it being a pre-law stricture, please show here it was enacted. And further please justify it as NTC practice without recourse to the law.

And please stop claiming to know what God would "definitely" have done to reveal His will. As He clearly has and you obviously can't see it.

Just did - scroll above. Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42, besides others.

1. In these two parallel verses, The Lord was addressing Scribes - Teachers of the law - and Pharisees, the most perfect adherents of the same.

He was not and never did address issues of law observation to Christians. He even broke the written code - Matthew 12 - clearly showing it's the intent, not the letter that matters. If you suggest that He was not voiding the letter, then you claim He committed sin. Oya, explain to the forum !

In His sermon on the mount and His private recorded conversations with His disciples or any other instance The Lord never mentioned or commanded a tithe, he only ever exhorted giving.

2. Please enumerate the "others"

No, it is not compulsory. In matters of 'giving' (any type of 'giving'), God looks at the heart of the giver more than nything else.

It's not compulsory? The way you are arguing it, it has to be. If it's by law, you have to do it.
Your position and supporting arguements are becoming increasingly nonsensical. Tithing is not giving. Giving is a freewill, heartfelt endeavour.

You further convolute by claiming it's not 10%, not compulsory and not commanded. Why not just tell your acolytes the truth? Tell them "it's nothing to do with divine writ, but the way we do our religion in our church incorporates tithing"

Stop trying to sell it as something that is different to or accrues blessings different from giving
whilst claiming it a type of giving. Stop claiming it's voluntary while buttressing it by recourse to the law. Stop saying it's pre-law, while using Moses to justify it. Your needless taxonomy across a range of issues is more of your C&C theology. Enough already.

There is a difference between giving to the poor (Deut. 15:11 and Matt. 19:21) and giving in Church (Mark 12:42-43 and 1 Cor. 9:14). To confuse one for the other is why the Church is where it is today!

Ah, did I say needless taxonomy? There's a difference between loving your sister and your brother or your mum and dad. But the driver is what love does. Likewise there are differenct needs to give to, but the driver is the need, not the reason. Keep on mindlessly clasifying the pure and simple.

God bless
TV

Morning Pillgrim.1,

Good weekend? I'm quite hoping you had an epiphany on the "tithing" issue at some point during it . But until you confirm that, I'll assume the discussion continues as is.

Now;

Good point. So, please don't make this point a tedious one by trying to force your redundancy where the Lord did NOT ask you to do so.

But that the requirements of a written law have passed away is clearly demonstrated in scripture.

If that is so, did the Lord's "saving" work also "save" YOU from the other things - judgement, mercy and faith? If not, WHY not?

I find it very hard to believe that you continously fail to see this. I'm inclined to think you are just wilfully ignoring it due to a vested interest in maintaining recieved traditional notions. Never the less I shall repeat.

" The righteous requirements of the law - love in short - is still requisite. The means of achieving this - by grace - has changed".

That is why The Lord copmmanded those under the law to keep it. No Christian is ever commanded, told, encouraged or even advised to tithe. Not by the Lord or by His apostles as you keep falsely trumpeting.

Remember, to VOID one is simply to VOID the other. To RETAIN one is precisely to RETAIN the other - that is the message in Matt. 23:23.

Your logic is weak. If voiding the written demands of the law also voids the righteous requirement, then all the written code is still applicable.

Once again, you continously maintain that tithing is not by "law" and then try and justify it by recourse to same. Falsehood.

I'm not shouting. Please show me where the Cross "did away" with judgement, mercy and faith, and it sufficeth for now.

Christ fulfilled the written demands and the grace He ushered in enabled the righteous requirements - judgement, mercy, faith and the love of God.

In which case, it is NOT taught ANYWHERE in the NT that no "NTC" was ever asked to regard "judgement, mercy and faith" as applicable, not so?

Keep trying to bundle issues and ignore the plian facts. Righteousness (or holiness, justification, or sanctification) is no longer achieved by adherence to a written code. It's all by grace ~ The law came by Moses, but grace came by Jesus Christ ~ through faith.

The Lord did not ask that Christians NO LONGER Tithe - it is NOT taught anywhere! The Apostles did NOT ask that Christians NO LONGER tithe - it is NOT taught ANYWHERE!

Because the NT stricture is giving. Freewill and with a giving heart. Sacrificially if willing and able. All engendeed by grace. Giving is a grace. Please read 2 Corinthians 8 from the beginning. Thanks.

Since you've tried to throw one of the issues away, you have no justification to throw the other away. If you feel you do, please show us HOW, WHY, and WHERE the Lord asked that you do so.

Please tell the forum what the Lords death and ressurection accomplished - or failed to accomplish - regards the law, if you are adamant that parts of the written code are still to be adhered to by NTC. Please try and be brief and specific. Please state if the written code is still in effect, a yes or no would suffice. Thanks in advance!

His word in Matt. 23:23 is not a PARTIAL matter. In one word: Do BOTH!!! If you don't agree that He presented BOTH, please show us where He asked us to do ONLY ONE!!

Romans 8:4 - that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

You glaring failure to appreciate dichotomies of grace/law, flesh/spirit and works/faith are the root of your error here. I daresay it's compounded by your flawed understanding of how money is to be used in NTC life, and the fact that you hold so strongly to incorrect traditional notions. Too much "book" appears to have further excacerbated the problem .

The aposte Paul did - and he specifically mentioned the Law of Moses in 1 Cor. 9:8-10.

No he did not. The reference to the law was to demonstrate that those who give themselves to alter service in such a way that denies them any other means of livelihood should be cared for bythe church community. As noted in Timothy, every able bodied man should work. Functioning in church in any ministerial capacity does not void this.

Don't panic - neither the OT nor the NT teaches anywhere that tithing was a matter of "JUSTIFICATION"!! To make that inference here is to miss the whole point.

Pray tell, what is tithing a matter of?

Does the apostle Paul seek to "justify" the Christian by the LAW Of MOSES that he mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:8-10 as being written "for OUR sakes, NO DOUBT"?!? Was he there speaking about "justification"? If he was NOT, why try to make tithing a matter of "justifying" anyone?

Your misunderstanding references to the law to make a point to NTC, as somehow charging that the law be kept is so wrong. The law was about oxen, and as Paul rightly points out, is it oxen God is concerned about? Is it tithing God is concerned about? Or the care and love for those in need? The weightier requirements!

If tithing was "bondage", would the Lord Jesus have been preaching "bondage" to them in Matt. 23:23? If He was NOT, why are you TV01 trying to make it what it was NOT? Was Abraham in "bondage" when he tithed to Melchizedek

The Lord did not preach tithing - ever! He was telling those under the law to keep the law. Gentiles were never asked to keep the law, and The Apostle you relentlessly slander, fought tooth and nail - even at the risk of schism - to keep the law being imposed on NTC life, even for Jewish converts.

Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

Nothing comes via adherence to a written code as I have repeatedly said. Not justification, not righteousness, not santification, not holiness and not wisdom. The NTC life is by faith in Christ to accomplish the righteous requirements of the law, through the grace this faith provides and the enablement this grace engenders.

Your recourse to a written code under the sorry guise of a "worship response, or law that is still in effect" screams that you have not fully grasped dying to the law. If you don't die to the law, you can't comprehend being baptised into His death and being raised with him in newness of life.

John 5:39 - You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

God bless
TV

Here is what I asked you to deal with: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.32.html#msg1428224) where I simplified it by repetition. Could you kindly deal with it in a fair manner?

There are TWO issues there in Matt. 23:23:


"THESE" -- weightier matters of the LAW - (judgment, mercy, and faith)


the "OTHER"  --  tithes


WHICH one of the above did the Lord specifically in that verse ask YOU TV01 to make redundant?

             ¤¤¤¤ Is it "THESE" or the "OTHER"?

If He ever asked you to make either of them "redundant", please TYPE it out so others can read WHERE He said so!!!

The Lord did not personally ask me to make anything redundant .

The tithe instituted under the Mosaic law was fulfilled and done away with as part of the saving work of Christ.

¤¤¤¤ Is it "THESE" or the "OTHER"?

If He ever asked you to make either of them "redundant", please TYPE it out so others can read WHERE He said so!!!

Please don't shout. The Mosaic Law has it's fulfilment in Christ.

To void "THESE" is to void the "OTHER"!

That is you not scripture, and sadly wrong.

To RETAIN "THESE" is to RETAIN the "OTHER" as well!

Ditto.

The written code route to righteousness is not applicable to NTC.  No NTC was ever asked to tithe by The Lord or His disciples. It is not taught in the NT. Anywhere!

TV01, which one of the above did the Lord specifically ask YOU to make REDUNDANT?

Please don't nag me. You are not my wife !

You cannot teach tithing by recourse to the Mosaic law.

Galatians 2:16 - know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:11 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

Galatians 3:24 - So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 4:4 -  But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Galatians 5:4 - You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Tithing is a work of the law. It's bondage and slavery girl, don't go there! It's doubly tragic as it's essentially denying the grace of God in Christ Jesus!

God bless
TV

_{Ceaselessly berating me won't change the clearly explicit and simple declaration of the holy scriptures. Don't take it personal, you are simply wrong 8 !}

Pilly, Pilly, Pilly,

Will you weary me?

You are not being coherent in your postulations and not seeming to understand what you yourself are saying.

pilgrim.1:
I never equated the PRINCIPLES to the "code", and you can't allege that I did.

No girl, the intent is what would at best equate to principles, not the code. Pilly dear, step into true liberty in Christ.

God bless
TV

The post was in response to Pilgrim.1. Who claims that NT references to the OT law are applicable to NTC and at once proclaims women are permitted to teach in a church setting, even in the presence of suitably qualified male elders.

Oya Pilly what sayest thou?

pilgrim.1:
I'm waiting.

Peresumably to quote this

1 Corinthians 14:34 - Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Seems I bring out the hidden bully in you huh ?

I noticed you NEVER addressed the core concern of Matthew 23:23 in your reposte. This is the one thing I continually have called the attention of tithe-ooposers to: the fact that you're least interested in dialogue and your unwillingness to answer questions.

Simply untrue, I have addressed it severally, from different perspectives and have given you credit for the applicable portion of your own insight. My gently joshing is no match for your industrial scale vituperation and sly invective. However, it doesn't stop me addressing issues. Ignore the asides, they are just that.

All the same, I'd like for you to deal with this particular issue as simply and directly as you possibly could manage:

Yes ma!

1)

        MATTHEW 23:23 and LUKE 11:42


Let me outline them for easier reference:

   ¤ (A) the 'CODE' - [tithes/tithing]

   ¤ (B) the INTENT - [weightier matters of the Law: judgement, mercy and faith]

   ¤¤¤ So, which of the two elements did He ask you to retain?

   ¤¤¤ Which one of them did He ask you to make redundant?

If you void one [(A)], then you'd have to void the other [(B)] - because the Lord voided NEITHER of them!!   This is His word:

   ¤¤ "THESE" ought ye to have done  -- (A) the 'CODE'

   ¤¤ AND not to leave the "OTHER" undone -  (B) the INTENT

So, if you argue to keep/retain "the intent" and make "the code" redundant, are you not really misinterpreting the Lord's WORD in that verse?

I earlier said this;

Quote from: TV01 on Today at 10:20:11 AM
How can you say its by an applicable written law and then say it's not by mandate.

To which you replied;

pilgrim.1:
The context is clear - don't twist it. I offered that its PRINCIPLES are applicable, did I not?

The answer in your own words;

The code is done away with, the intent is retained.

Look girl, no need to keep my company under pretence of a scriptural discussion. If you'd like a hot date with T_bloV_iate, just say . Fix your make-up and I''ll come get you. Leave the sparring gloves at home and I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised about how erudite I am on a whole range of topics. ! Eeerrrr, by the way, are you a fine girl !

(2)

        MATTHEW 23:23 and LUKE 11:42

         Christ simply pointed out this:

       
THESE do  . . . (a)



the OTHERS do also. . . (b)


     Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42

   (NLT - New Living Translation)

   'You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.'

But to "deal with the issues" and for completeness, I'll answer this as well .

Matthew 23:23 - Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

The Lord was clearly speaking to Jews under the law at the time - that the written law was still in effect. It was done away with His resurrection. QED.

Scribes ~ Teachers of the - religiousm- law (as some versions render it) and
Pharisees ~ An ultra religious Jewish sect

What law was He referring to? Was it not the Mosaic? Enough said.

If the Lord asked you to make "THESE" redudant, please come simply write it out for your readers to see the point.

And if He asked to you make the OTHERS redudant as well, please write it out as well.

At this point, you'd only make your readers see in print how well you can mis-"interpret" clear statements!!

Done away with, fulfilled, established by grace and not written ordinances, written in hearts and not on stones _{speaking of which I've won yours right} . REDUNDANT!!!!!

I really do need you to address them. NO evasions or prevarications, please.

Ok, where/when shall we meet !

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
I'd prefer if you address me cordially and leave out the now weathered "weaker sex".

Sorry dear ! Abeg no vex, I'll try and be the gentleman we all know I really am.