₦airaland Forum

cgift:
I could not help but laugh at your conclusion "nonsnse and ingredents".

That was the whole point, to engender some humour. I don't fight my wars on paper, or with members of the weaker sex. I'm sure Pilly.1 appreciates that. Having said that if anyone is offended, my sincerest apologies.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim.1,

If you were a young lad, I'd label you as rascally and send you off with a cuff around the ear. Being a younger member of the weaker sex, I have to be a little more tender. But boy you are one querulous woman. Haba!

1. When are you going to admit that The Lord was not addressing NTC in Matthew 23:23 and the parallel verse?

2. When are you going to stop claiming the tthe pre-dates the law, whilst at the same time trying to support it by recourse to same? Expecially when it is clear that we are no longer governed by a written code.

3. When are you going to stop championing Moses (law), for NTC and allow them thier liberty in Christ (grace)?

4. When are you going to understand that fulfilling and/or establishing the law in NT terms is not to revive the written code - being counterintuitive as it was nailed to the cross - but to fulfill its righteous requirements in those who are led by the Spirit by grace?

5. When wil you accept that the NT clearly teaches that to keep any aspect of the law is to be bound to keep it all. Same theme clearly outlines that to aspoire to a law based righteousness leads to a fall from grace?

6. Why do you think that be ignoring the obvious and forcefully reading your interpretaion into scripture and then repeating it ad-infinitum, that the facts will change?


Quote from: TV01 on Yesterday at 04:14:01 PM
“Thou shallt not kill; I don’t kill because I don’t want to suffer the consequences or the wrath of God. That is written code. It won’t make you love, just possibly prevent you from murdering. Further, if you attempt to claim righteousness on that point, you are duty bound to fulfill every other written requirement.

Sorry, but that analogy is weak; and if anything, it brings us to the same thing - you still have to obey what it says - do not MURDER!

Why in your blind insistence on the need to marry religion with faith are you denying the obvious. If I don't murder anyone, it does not mean I love them, it just means I'm wary of the law. A written code cannot make you Christlike.

That would be a difficult one for you to establish, because you'd still have to find the verse that says it was "swept away" with the rest of the written code!

In as much as tithe was introduced by law, it went the way of it in light of the saving work of The Lord. If you want to make a case for NT tithe based on pre-law type, please do so. Stop insisting it's not by coercion or commandment, whilst at the same time saying its part of a still applicable written law.

Please ask yourself what CHRIST came to fulfill!! Was it not that same written code He came to fulfill, which He clearly pronounced as such that no "jot" or "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the Law until all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:18)? Was Christ seeking "flesh glorying" when He came to fulfill the written Law?

You deviousness knows no bounds !

~ How can you claim that The Lord came to fulfill the law and at once claim parts of it are still applicable. The least you are doing is calling the work incomplete and adding works to faith in order to effect salvation. This is "flesh glorying", saying "I am righteouss because I adhere to a written code"

~ An intellect a 100th the size of yours can clearly see, that in His fulfilling it it passed away. Nailed to the cross. Enter grace. Alleluja!

What ordinances were nailed to the cross? Was that in part or in whole? If in part, were the parts voided different in intent from those not voided? You reasoning is facile. You continuously disparage the verses signifying how the law is fulfilled and relentlessly insist on parts of it being applicable. Your arguement is as clear as mud and so error strewn its scary!

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.'


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!!

Please if you insist that Christ was talking to NTC, please enunciate which other parts of the written code - and exhaustively please - NTC are to keep.

You also have failed to outline the "divine principles" - again exhaustively - that you keep cryptically refering to. Would you be so kind?

My points have been crystal clear from the onset. I never made it a matter of COERCION, MANDATE, COMPULSION, or FORCE! It is because you have tried to champion that default position and tried to forcefully read it into other people's posts, that's why we have stayed on just one point until the discussion went downslope. Several times I pointed out that TITHING was a matter of WILLINGNESS from the heart - never a matter of the MANDATE you forcefully tried to make out of it.

That just makes you forked tongued at best! How can you say its by an applicable written law and then say it's not by mandate. If one breaks a law, what does that make one. You proclaim it as law and then say it's freewill? Muddled thinking, or plain falsehood?

That's not true. Those who give, the Lord clearly stated they will be blessed over those who do not - read it again:

No one is railing against freewill giving. And stop trying to make them synonymous, when you are insistent that they are different. The freewill is not prompted by a codified law.

2 Cor. 9:6, 8 & 10

(6) But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully
shall reap also bountifully.

One who sows - not tithes - can be sparingly or bountifuully how is that 10%? Optional and dependant on the heart of the sower.

(8 ) And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things,
may abound to every good work

Grace girl, grace.

(10) Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown,
and increase the fruits of your righteousness

You cannot keep denying the clear statements in these verses and others that point out that the giver receives blessings that non-givers would not have.

Keep munching on your own tongue. Giving is blessed, freewill and from the heart. You are proclaiming a tithe based on the written code of Moses or at least supported by it.

On the other hand, I've not argued to call a curse on anyone who does not give. My persuasion has always been simple and straightforward: if you don't believe in TITHING, I'm not commissioned to fight you simply because I believe in its power and revelation! I've said so and reminded you several times about the same. It is your restlessness over this matter that makes you once and again allege that tithers are "BINDING" people to a 'man-made' religion - which I also challenged, and found you unable to simply answer the questions I offered thereto.

Now it's tithing again. They are not the same. Not predicated on the same basis nor effected by the same means. You are so convoluted if you looked like you spoke, you'd be Fusilli or a badly mishapen - and burnt - pretzel.

Right from the off, I requested you to distinguish b/w tithing and giving. You haven't and can't, because you slyly choose to sell them as the same, while claiming different blessings - and power and revelation - for tithers.

'Fess up, you have an agenda, a hidden motive, a vested interest in perpetuating this falsehood and getting yourself into a funk over it.

And you also lie about the curse, as it's inherent in your arguement. If one breaks the law of Moses one is cursed, just like blessings accrue for adhering to it. Nonsense and ingrdients!

God bless
TV

Pilgrim.1

The Lord did not predicate the "righteouseness of the Law" or the "righteousness of faith" on Matt. 23:23. He simply spoke of the essential matters of the LAW that were timeless - "judgment, mercy, and faith". There is not one time at all where a law or commandment was enacted to negate these essential matters - UNLESS you want to void FAITH and MERCY on the basis of the LAW - the very thing which Rom. 3:31 expressly forbids you and me!!

Please ponder this a little more. Justice, mercy, and faith are indeed essential. But not attained to by a written code, which was what was demonstrated by law in the OT.

In as much as we say or can use law in NT parlance, it’s the “Law of the Heart”, not a written law of ordinances.

Please see the continuity in this from OT to NT from Law to Grace.

Jeremiah 31:33 - But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 8:10 - For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 10:16 - "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"

The intent of the law is unchanging the way it is achieved is different.

Grace did not begin in the NT - please go back to Gen. 6:8 - "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."

Lot also was said to have found grace and mercy in God's sight (Gen. 19:19).

Even Moses also found grace in God's sight - Exo. 33:12 and 17

Ezra in his prayer recognized that God gave grace to the remnant of Israel - Ezra 9:8

Grace is beauty for another time perhaps? Suffice to say here is that the word/term “grace” has various meanings and renderings.

The grace of God in Christ Jesus NT style, includes elements of saving, enabling, scourging and teaching . For the most part the OT examples you have referenced merely mean “favour”.

The law was a tutor/schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ (not "to grace", as you said - see Gal. 3:24). But though even you could recognize that the "intent" of the Law 'remains', the point here is that TITHE was not an 'intent' of the Law. HOW? Because, the Law was not ratified on the basis of tithing, or to make tithing its mainstay! Second, as you earlier agreed, TITHING did not originate with the Law, and therefore the Law could not then make "redundant" what it did not originate!

Point taken, but the grace of God is in Him. And as referenced immediately above, I refer not just to grace as favour.

You chase the tail of your own argument if you say “tithe was not an intent of the law”. That is my point exactly, hence it’s redundancy as purely written ordinance.

More tail chewing on your point re the “origins of tithing”. I aalso mentioned this earlier. Tithing as part of a written code is in no way applicable to NTC. If you agree that, why do you try and buttress you position by reference to a written code.

If you endorse it based on pre-law events/practice, please build your case without recourse to a written code.

Tithing did not "add" to anyone's righteousness - either in the OT or the NT. What did it do? It simply was a response in worship to God's sovereignty in richly BLESSING His people. This is the case in Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek; and that is also the case in the celebration feast of tithers in Deuteronomy 12 and 14.

Stop that “Worship response” gimmick already! And in as much as the Deuteronomy reference is a response, it was codified in law.

How then did I make reference at one time to 2 Cor. 9:10 in connection with the "blessings" of tithing? Notice that verse did not say that it increases one's "righteousness"; but rather it did say categorically that it increases the "FRUITS" of one's righteousness!

No one could honestly claim to see tithing in view here. It has to be read into the text. And forcibly at that.

As I pointed out earlier, "engendering" anything was not the point the Lord was making in Matt. 23:23. When people read such ideas into that text, they lose the whole value of what the Lord meant to cover. He clearly denounced their hypocrisy in their partial obedience; and at the same time called for full obedience to the essential matters as well as the "other" aspect - TITHES!

They were not NTC, they were Jews under the law and bound to keep it. You keep relentlessly overlooking this pivotal fact. He told them to keep the written law and be mindful of it’s intent. Do NTC have to keep a written law?

No, no, no and no. That is not the point at all. I do appreciate your persuasion; but I fail to see that is the point the Lord was calling for in that text. He was not making it an issue of "you are Jews under the Law" etc., etc. He was denouncing their hypocrisy while calling their hearts to a proper obedience in both aspects of the essential matters He set forth. To void "THESE" is to void the "OTHER".

Yes, yes, yes and yes! Whilst your insight is partly right, it is incomplete in not incorporating the dispensation and era the addresses belonged to. Please stop wilfully ignoring it.

God bless
TV

Pilgrim.1,

First, did you actually read, digest and try to understand my post or are you playing some hard to fathom joke and having a laugh? I needed to say that, get it off my chest .

You may not know this, but you're coming even closer to confirming my points. Yes, you certainly would disagree about that, but like I often say, here's HOW, WHY and WHERE I'm persuaded that's the case:

Overall I am saying tithing is not taught, encouraged or commanded in the NT, you are saying the opposite. So let me categorically affirm that I have not moved in the least, have you?

The 'bigger picture' presented in boths sides is the very thing we have once and again been trying to make you guys come to terms with. We have sounded this again and again, but it seems you keep missing the picture here and mixing it up with the idea that "the LAW" has been made wholesale redundant, and as such, there's nothing in its element that speaks to the Christian today. That is simply not true - and it was for that reason that I actually took time to outline the essential features of what is represented by the term "the LAW" in the NT.

You couldn’t have stated it much better. The works based keeping of the law is redundant. In Matthew 23:23, tithe was but a metaphor for the whole written code, as was circumcision in other instances. Having said that the intent – righteous requirement - of the law justice, mercy, faith etc is still very much required, only now it is not attained by slavish devotion to a written code, but by grace. Two more points here;

1. You taxonomic approach to “The Law in the NT” avails nothing
2. You ignored the references to Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14

And two more verses. The written code is by works and for the flesh – in which no good thing dewells – and can never make you perfect before God. Fulfillment of the written code is nothing more than flesh glorying.

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.

Okay, first I'd like you to please keep that constantly in mind so that we don't make the mistake of doing such anymore. Since you'd have to agree the Lord did not denounce or disparage tithes, please do not assume to do so either.

A moot point, as I have never done so. I have spelt out severally my stance on tithing for NTC. As an individual thing it's permissable within the liberty we have in Christ. No over and above blessings if you do and no curses if you don't. End of story. My denunciation has been of the attempt to establish a “Tithing Doctrine” either by command, or as “A God given part of NT worship”, both wrong. To a lesser degree, possibly those who proclaim such, as while some may do so out of ignorance, others do it for material gain, hence my reference to the “cloak for covetousness.

Look again at that text in Matt. 23:23 - did the Lord hint anywhere about making anyone "righteous" by the LAW? Or did He intend to suggest there that He had His eyes on the 'dispensation of the Spirit led, grace filled life' that even the Jews could not have understood at that point?

If you think that was the case, wouldn't it be unfair for Him to have been speaking to them about things they had no capacity under the old covenant to grasp? Surely, that would muddle thinsg up. WHY? Because Scripture bears testimony that no one (including His disciples) could have fathomed anything about what the Lord came to establish UNTIL He had risen from the dead. See John 20:9 and Luke 24:45 - ('for as yet they knew not the Scripture'. . . 'Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures') and 1 Cor. 2:8.

Good point, but it is wrongly aimed.

1. It has been explained repeatedly by several contributors, that The Lord was addressing those under the law, the whole reason why He said they should have tithed, whilst not ignoring the intent of the law.

2. We are discussing in relation to those not under the law – NTC – as such we have a full canon and greater insight to the Lords intent in Matthew 23:23 and into the completeness of His work.

TV01, the question now would be: was the Lord making 'judgement and the love of God' REDUNDANT? This is the one question one has to settle before insisting He was making the other aspect "redundant". So, if the Lord was NOT making redundant the matters of "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42), why then would anyone want to do so? And if He did not make the first aspect redundant, why would anyone want to make it read as such, when the Lord clearly said: "and not to leave the other undone"?

Once again, the intent – the righteous requirement – of the law is not redundant, but a written code as the means to effect it is. Tithing is code, justice, mercy and faith are intent. This is where you should pay attention to detail. A written law cannot make you love someone.

“Thou shallt not kill; I don’t kill because I don’t want to suffer the consequences or the wrath of God. That is written code. It won’t make you love, just possibly prevent you from murdering. Further, if you attempt to claim righteousness on that point, you are duty bound to fulfill every other written requirement.

For completeness sake I repeat, please distinguish between the letter and the intent. Letter is tithing, circumcision. Ritual that will not in or of itself make you righteous or holy or change your core nature.

You see HOW and WHY you cannot use either Matt. 23:23 or Luke 11:42 as proof texts for commiting TITHES to redundancy. If you make the "OTHER" redundant, then you'd have to make "THESE" redundant as well! The Lord never suggested at all that only one aspect was approved, while the other was negated.

This is why I offered that the interpretation of Matt. 23:23 to make TITHES redundant is simply untennable.

I concede your point here. Tithing is not made redundant by that verse. It is swept away with the rest of the written law. The point to note, is that in as much as it was part of the written code - as that verse clearly demonstrates - it in no way perpetuates it for NTC.

God bless
TV

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Jesus did not disparage, discountenance, or denounce tithes - that's what I'm trying to ask you gentlemen to understand, against the backdrop of the claim that He did, or that it has become redundant!

I feel it is essential to try and see the bigger picture as well as the detail and be sure that there is resonance in one's own position with both.

The Lord did not have to disparage, discountenace or denounce tithes because;

1. His advent, saving work and introducing the dispensation of the Spirit led, grace filled life, did away with the "righteousness by law" dispensation of which tithing was a part.

2. Matthew 23:23. You adamantly refuse to acknowledge the context of that verse and deride it as an insufficient "excuse" to validate the redundancy of tithing.

The Lord fulfilled the law. He did not champion it, or in any way seek to re-inforce its applicability. The law has "righteous requirements", the problem being that the physical works of the law alone could never meet that requirement. In the era of grace, it morphs from a problem to a catch 22 situation, as actually trying to attain to righteousness by law, means you cannot at once attain to it by grace.

3. Romans. 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. "

Pertinent verse, but again one must be able to align it in isolation, context and the overall picture.

Is it the letter of the law that is being established? No, no, no. It’s the righteous requirement of it.

The law was a tutor to bring us to grace. The “intent” of the law remains, but it is not by the letter/works of the law that we satisfy this. It’s by grace through faith, by the Spirit of The Lord.

The Lord was showing that tithing the smallest herbs to anal degree of accuracy would not engender righteousness and in any event, accuracy or even adherence was not the point, loving God and thy neighbour was, hence the reference to judgement, mercy and faith.

So the message IMHO was this “Yes you should have tithed – for you are Jews, under the law, and said law is still in effect – but you have tragically failed to see the intent of the law – justice, mercy, faith etc – Thus presuming yourself righteous because you fulfilled the letter of the law to the tiniest degree – can you imagine accurately tithing herbs as tiny as mint or cumin – is hollow, as that is a works based attempt to attain to righteousness via adherence and accuracy, which although fulfilling the letter, does not the intent.

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

I also made reference to the fact that we are not asked to look for LITERAL applications of every single verse; but rather seek to understand the PRINCIPLES stated, explained and applied in the NT.

Again whilst you attention to detail is commendable, it is the wrong approach here. To try and find a principle for every ordinance of the law and translate it into the NT, would be cumbersome and unmanageable. Not to mention that that approach leaves it subject to  many interpretations -  welcome to over 30'000 Christian sects and counting. A birds eye view of the laws intent bests serves here, and enables us to understand this;

Romans 13:8 -  Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.}

Galatians 5:14 - For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself."

God bless
TV

I'm sure Enigma will more than adequately respond to you in his own unique way, but while we wait, allow me.

What is the "proper context" you have indicated by that analogy?

1. The Lord was addressing those under the law
2. The payment was not money, but farm produce

WHAT did Jesus ask them to observe? ("these ought ye to have done"

Tithing their produce

and what OTHER thing was He asking them to not leave UNDONE? ("and not to leave the other undone"

JM&F. Those who are smitten by the letter of the law can be worryingly blind to its intent. The whole of the law is summed up in "love God and thy neighbour". If you do so you will treat him fairly, attend to their needs, be merciful and live by faith not mindless ritual.

^{Plus, all this is still about the law,  which you have severally stated is not the basis on which you validate the tithe. Please stop obsfucating! Noting that your understanding or inferences from the law are still hideously flawed.}

If Jesus spoke of the one, was He intending to overthrow the other?

Presumably your gargantuan intellect can now see the senslessness of this statement?

WHERE specifically did Jesus make Matthew 23:23 REDUNDANT?

Are you so enamoured with the law that you percieve Matthew 23:23 to be one? OMG !

In other words, Matt. 23:23 was does not reflect Jesus commanding His believers/followers to observe the elements of the Law that he spoke about in that verse - "judgment, mercy, and faith"?!?

Listen real carefully here my dear! Jesus was not asking His followers to attain to anything by observing the law, He introduced a whole new way to do so. It's called grace.

And as Enigma rightly pointed out, He was not in this instance addressing His followers.

Even perfection under the law (Philippians) does not engender the righteousness of faith.

Posts of epic length aside Pilgrim.1, you are scarily wrong in your understanding of law and grace and the context and applicability of both. Attempting to camoflauge your error under reams of academic jargon, by recourse to the languages of antiquity, by digging up esoteric bible versions and obscure scriptural translations do nothing to disguise your ignorance (if you truly believe what you write and are not using the gospel as a cloak for covetopusness). In fact, they just make it all the more apparent, and push you further down the hubristic path of "knowing" more than others. back to love girl. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

God bless
TV

Pilgrim.1,

How far? Hope you've cooled down somewhat? Take it easy my dear, gurning belligerence although highly beloved by a certain type of person, does not actually prove anything. Now to work .

pilgrim.1:
I've discussed the principles of HOW "the Law" was applied by the apostles in the NT. Go there and see it, if your hypocrisy would let you bear the weight of your shame.

For completeness sake, I wnt back and reread your torrent of incontinent prose - I use the word prose liberally - and have this to say in response to your quote below;

(b) Its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:
      * specific commandments
      * prophecies
      * exhortations
      * divine principles

All these matters are found in "the LAW" - and the apostles in the NT specifically referred to them as applicable to the Christian life and faith, and did not give the slightest hint that they had become REDUNDANT as if to throw them wholesale in the bin as you're advocating!!

Leaving aside the middle two for now, pray tell;

1. What the specific commandment in the law (any part of it) apply to Christians
2. What exactly are the "divine principles" you mentioned

Especially in light of this;

John 1:17 - For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Does that mean that the law (or that part that did not come through Moses?) and the prophets (and the psalms, the history and the prophecies and exhortations), where not fulfilled by the advent and work of the Lord?

John 1:45 - Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph

Are you saying that the the Law which you so needlessly (as with giving) went to great lengths to delineate, classify, graduate and systemise, was continued after the first coming of the Lord, be that in part or in whole?

Does the verse from John 1 not open up a whole world of meaning to you?

Tell us more about these "divine principle", especially in light of the "continuing" applicability of the law.

Presumably they have been codified? And would that be in a succinct way that we could all see and understand, or would only yourself and a few other cogniscenti be wise and knowledgeable to decipher? Care to share with us lowlifes and dank unlearned please?

pilgrim.1:
I've asked if you want to invite a discussion or you'd rather continue to be swathed in your bandages after each encounter with pilgrim.1.

Is that a threat or a promise sweetie !

pilgrim.1:
And what have you been doing all the time I WARNED you severally to save your uncivil manners and instead invite a discussion? You never cry - buy a towel, because I haven't even started landing the blows!

We have a tough nut, a fighter! My heart fails me, my bones turn to jelly!

pilgrim.1:
I've discussed the principles of HOW "the Law" was applied by the apostles in the NT. Go there and see it, if your hypocrisy would let you bear the weight of your shame.

Just answer briefly. How is Faith a matter of Law!

God bless
TV

_{Abeg Pilly, don't kick sand in my face 0! I'll be the laughing stock of the Nairaland beach !}

cgift:
Has anyon ver considered this scripture very well.

Yes I have.

cgift:
TV, you quoted it in passing.

Yes I did.

cgift:
Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Christ said emphatically, this YOU OUGHT TO HAVE DONE WITHOUT LEAVING THE OTHER UNDONE.

Verse in question.

cgift:
This is certainly an instruction to pay tithes.

Indeed it is. But please note as follows;

1. It was described as a matter of the law.
2. It was spoken to those under the law.
3. By the One who fulfilled the law so that those who put their faith in Him don't have too.

As ever, the modalities of expounding scripture is very simple. In any language!

pilgrim.1:
Lol, they don't see it as an instruction to tithe.

Keep misascribing, misjiving and generally exposing your rather poor contextual grasp of scripture. Your own acada na fancy dress !

pilgrim.1:
I was coming to that;

Too late, beat you to it!

pilgrim.1:
NOW begin asking my own questions

Yawn!

pilgrim.1:
since they've made it their bírthright to ONLY ask questions and NEVER proffer answers to the queries others present

Query asked, query expounded, query answered. Presumably you won't hear it under the cacaphony of self you noise abroad.

pilgrim.1:
However, we are not told to observe the LAW. It was rather "the weightier matters" of the Law that Christ pointed to.

Please explain fully - but succinctly if you can - how one does not "observe" the law, whilst being pointed to the "weightier matters of it". _{Pilgrim does the C&C Theology dance !}

pilgrim.1:
I'm waiting to see how they want to disregard what the Lord Jesus said about those matters: "judgment, mercy, and faith".

Don't just falsely ascribe, slanderously prescribe as well. No one has disregarded anything, except the quite sorry man-made religion you've been relentlessly trying to impose. And add another "C" - for compound - to your C&C approach. You'll undoubtedly fail to answer my prevoious question. But kindly explain to the board how "Judgement, mercy and faith" are matters of law.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
I've been sharing on this and offered answers to every single question that was posed by those who were antagonistic to the subject. I asked nothing more in return than that such antagonists themselves should oblige answers to my questions. Did they do this, including yourself, TV01?

We can make claims back and forth. Answer all or even 1 of the 5 questions I posed just recently.
Please do so in one succinct and brief post and lets restart the discussion.

I'll even do it on your terms and allow you to vary terms as we proceed, so certain am I of the utter futility of your position.

Again, I expect you to scurry using one of your tried and trusted methods. Again, please feel free to prove me wrong!

I'm right here Miss.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
I'm not here to keep up an argument that leads nowhere. TV01 and Enigma, I thank you both for taking the pleasure to try and besmirch me, but it's of little import.

You love it! And the effete nature of your arguements aside, are glorying in the attention .

pilgrim.1:
Whenever you guys are ready to DISCUSS issues

Ready already. Please bring it!

pilgrim.1:
And no, TV01 - I had nothing to do with locking the other thread. If you've got nothing other than your defeatist mentality to display whenever your comfort zone is squeezed, please seek psychiatric help fast.

Pilly.1 chill! Such a rancid retort to a little giggle! Ah, ah! Calm down. Repeat after me;

It's only a discussion thread
It's only a discussion thread
It's only a discussion thread

There, that should help you keep things in perspective and reduce your dangerously high blood pressure!

Mwah

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
I've been sharing on this and offered answers to every single question that was posed [color=#770077]

Only the questions have been mostly posed by yourself in teaser form, contrary answers steamrolled, and your trite traditional positions rammed down our throats. This has been married with absurdly contorted interpretations of Greek/Hebrew, selective use of different versions/transalations and a large dose of self deluded scholastic hubris.

Please show a simple end to end outline/exposition of tithing in the NT and allow the forum to ask questions. One simple post should suffice. Some pointers would be as follows;

1. Where the NT instructs or recommends it
2. How, when and in what form it is to be paid
3. Where it is to be paid
4 To whom it is to be paid
5. How it is to be disposed of

Again, a simple outline will do. You asked for a dare, I dare you to do just that. I expect nothing less than a spurious pointer to Abraham slyly supported by lengthy recourse to Moses. Feel free to shame me. Double dare!

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
TITHING is taught in the New Testament. I've been sharing on this and offered answers to every single question that was posed by those who were antagonistic to the subject. I asked nothing more in return than that such antagonists themselves should oblige answers to my questions. Did they do this, including yourself, TV01?

No Pilgrim.1, tithing is not taught in the NT. Anywhere. It's mentioned as follows;

1. Once (in 2 gospels) when the Lord is castigating those under the law for blindly following the letter (tithe) and missing the spirit.
2. And In Hebrews to signify the superiority of The Melchizedekal High Priesthood overthe Levitical/Aaronic.

No other mention by the Lord or any Apostles.

Giving and only freewill giving is taught in the NT. Don't try and sneakily bundle tithing in with it.

God bless
TV

Enigma:
Incredible interpretations and mixes-up ---- as I've ever seen; and I've seen all manners of strange arguments before!

Pilgrim.1's error is all the more dangerous as it comes garbed in the jargon of high-brow scholarship and deep understanding.

You can't fail to notice how Pilgrim.1's theology revives a designated physical place/temple (church) and a mediatory priesthood (Levites).

The jargon may be more esoteric and the understanding more convoluted, but it's the same sorry insistence on physical/man-made religious structures .

God bless
TV

simply_me:
because u don't believe in it doesnt make it false my dear.

Because you do doesn't make it true sweetie.

simply_me:
because u don't believe in it doesnt make it false my dear.

And because you do doesn't make it true sweetie !

Strange, there seems to be no "Reply" button on that thread!

Hi Enigma,

Hope all's well. I'm encouraged by seeing you fight the good fight. _{Presumably you are as amazed as I am as how anyone could read Deuteronomy 14:26 as "Give it to the poor, but do so via the MOGS" Always learning huh ?}

Presumably this is a technical issue or intervention by site admin. Surely Pilgrim.1 wouldn't go to such lengths to close down dissenting voices !

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
SHOW me (and others reading this thread) WHERE God asked YOU to DENOUNCE tithes!

The Bible exhorts believers to accurately divide the word. The erronous way tithe is often preached in contemporary times is nothing less than bondage and a snare for many simple believers, and should be at once resisted and deconstructed.

The sum of any NTC tithing position/doctrine is this.

At best it's an individual and voluntary exercise. Not binding or incumbent on anyone.

And certainly not an integral part of NT worship.

Your venal efforts to appropriate redundant OT strictures, re-engineer them as NT worship forms and then use them to snare and fleece the flock of God will be met with fierce resistance.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
I'll note that; and as soon as you deserve it, you'll be served.

Predictable empty boast! Abeg, stick to making wierd animal noises! _{Which would well accompany the scatological bovine waste you've assiduously spread over this thread! Because it's green, do you think its grass? Nonsense !}

pilgrim.1:
Dare me more. . . as again, dare me me!!

_{pilgrim.1 let's out a guffaw that could remove his spine if he heard me!!}

Consider yourself dared!

_{And please ditch the domestic pet, farmyard animal, zoo inmate and wild beast noises! You are in polite company now !}

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Let me repeat here what I also cautioned against>

Don't use your own lies to play God. If you don't understand issues clearly from the WORD, simply offer the advice you can, and don't try pretending that your own fallacy is the truth.

You'd do well to heed your own advice madam.

pilgrim.1:
If it is true at all that you have not denounced what is in the WORD, what did you mean by this statement:

For me to denounce it, it has to be there! The whole point of this thread, to see if it is taught as part of NTC.

pilgrim.1:
One question, please:

Did TITHING originate with the LEVITICAL priesthood?

No it did not.

But please note the following;

1. Tithing was extant before Abraham and common practice as clearly gleaned from antiquity.
2. Tithing did not originate with Abraham.
3. It was nowhere instituted as a law or commandment with or at the time of Abraham.
Therefore, what was never enacted, can not be abrogated.
4. It was enacted with the Mosaic law and made redundant as part of same, via the Cross.

Simple really.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
You guys are just a big shame! If you had any scholarship to boast of, please go hawk it for the price of "pure water" on the streets of Lagos!

No dear, you are the one selling scholarship - or something that you are trying to pass off as such - to participants. I am merely sharing and discussing the truth of scripture. The Bible warns of those who use the gospel as a "cloak for covetousness" and make "merchandise" of the word of God.

Your end game is to justify a salaried professional clergy. It's not there, non withstanding your contorted and convoluted manouvering.

pilgrim.1:
Instead of settling down to DISCUSS with people, it has become second nature to you to offer childish questions, look for loop holes in people's posts to sarcastically criticize when you yourselves have NOTHING to offer other than assertive denials and decorative farcé!

It's tedious to respond to blatant and endless butchering of the scriptures on a point by point basis. Especially when you can post up to half a dozen posts on just the one word. Example in your discussion with Enigma, the following verse Deuteronomy 14:26 which reads

26 And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord NKJV
26 and thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee; and thou shalt eat there before Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household. NAS
26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you ESV
26 and thou shalt give the money for whatever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever thy soul asketh of thee; and thou shalt eat there before Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thy house DARBY
26 and thou hast given the money for any thing which thy soul desireth, for oxen, and for sheep, and for wine, and for strong drink, and for any thing which thy soul asketh, and thou hast eaten there before Jehovah thy God, and thou hast rejoiced, thou and thy house.YLT

In a discussion about the contextual meaning of the word rendered “bestow”
Pilgrim 1 did the following (and in a legthy multiple post treatise)

1. Introduced a needless Salary and  Tithe dichotomy?
2. Postulated Buying & Selling distinction? (And a market in trading tithes??)
3. Insisted that bestowing the monetary converted tithe on oxen, sheep or WINE or strong drink was in someway buying someone elses tithe (was wine or strong drink ever tithed?)
4. Moved on to introduce the concept of traders, merchants, entrepreneurs, tycoons (and presumably oligarchs at some point).
5. Tied that to God in Christ – and rightly so too - hating merchandising in worship.
6. Made reference to her obsession with TV01 !
7. Referenced several other uses of the word in diofferent contexts, but insisted the meaning in different contexts buttressed your ill defined one in the verse under discussion.
8. Determined bestow meant “give” as in donate, confer, bequeath etc, and not buy, spend, use or apply etc
9. Spoke some Greek and some Hebrew (although unbeknown to her she had been speaking Greek all along!)
10. Then claimed that the giving was to the poor
11. But it had to be given via the MOG’s

One more time;

26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice. NIV

That from a version I don't even like.

What in that verse makes "whatever you like", "anything you ", "whatsoever your soul lusteth after", "whatsoever thy soul desires, and all the variations difficult to understand. You are not interested in context, rather pretext for your recieved, traditional notions,

Devilishly convoluted and disingenuous. Pilgrim.1, this is way beyond the pale and just not acceptable.

You are also championing academic knowledge as king. Insisting that without being deeply versed in Greek, Hebrew, all the different translations or versions and knowing which to use and when, one cannot rightly understand or divide the word of truth. By the which doing two things;

1. Trying to do away with the tutelage of the Holy Spirit
2. Replacing that leading with the teachings of a professional salaried clergy class, who based on their knowledge are alone the true possesors of God's truth.

How anyone could read that verse to mean what you claim is nothing short of absurd. At best the poor and priests were to be included in the feasting, but it was feasting non the less.

pilgrim.1:
Is it too much to ask for a dialogue?

No, but that is not what you are after.

pilgrim.1:
TV01, you haven't met the REAL me yet! I may be a young woman, but it will take you eons to dream of even matching my insight here and outside the Forum.

A date with you would be uunforgettable in how absolutely forgettable it was! Or is that an offer ? Oya post your pic!

Young woman huh? That alone won't swing it. I know highly accomplished women of all ages, none of whom are ashamed to call me friend and not a few who would be happy to have me as a husband

My mandate is not to match you my dear, don't make it yours to outdo me. Anyway, I'm sure there are those who would make worthier benchmarks for you than I ever would!

Most women have a hook. Be it looks, figure, child birth, cooking etc, I guess yours is knowledge? Knowledge puffs up. Listen to how seriously you take yourself ! Which is doubly tragic in this instance , as not only are you so painfully wrong, but you are willing to travel to the ends of the world to declare yourself right.

pilgrim.1:
I've severally warned you to DISCUSS with people - but since you have more peanuts in your skull than brains, dare me more: and you will be sorry for walking on two legs!!

Rail against me with all the vituperation you can muster. I won't budge. And please save your threats, I know He who judges me.

It you can find it within yourself to discuss simply, on a point by point basis, I'm here. If you want to use a mixture of abuse, threats, warped scholarship and lengthy posts to dissuade me, I still won't abandon the thread for you.

The choice is yours young lady.

God bless
TV

Hnd-holder:
@pilgrim.1

Any problem?

I think my playing hard to get is getting to her !

dav700:
tithing is an eternal law in the everlasting kingdom of christ so, from ages past to ages to come its compulsory!

Presumably the Angels tithe? along with the 4 & 24 elders.

Sarcasm apart, do you have any scriptural backing for this? or is it just the usual parroted MOGbunkum?

God bless
TV

G-money:
@poster
I am quoting the Amplified version for easier understanding. Also, I am showing several verses so you can see where Jesus started talking:

Luke 11:
37Now while Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee invited Him to take dinner with him, so He entered and reclined at table.

38The Pharisee noticed and was astonished [to see] that Jesus did not first wash before dinner.

39But the Lord said to him, Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside you yourselves are full of greed and robbery and extortion and malice and wickedness.

40You senseless (foolish, stupid) ones [acting without reflection or intelligence]! Did not He Who made the outside make the inside also?

41But [dedicate your inner self and] give as donations to the poor of those things which are within [of inward righteousness] and behold, everything is purified and clean for you.

42But woe to you, Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every [little] herb, but disregard and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done without leaving the others undone.

Vers 42 in KJV - But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Jesus is plainly telling them that "Tithing, they ought to have done but not leave other things undone."
So Jesus didn't preach a sermon on it but He referenced it. But remember, God loves a cheerful giver. If you can't release your tithes & offering cheerfully (because you love God), then just go ahead and buy yourself a happy meal with the dough.


---Don't hate the messenger----

Two thing too lay what is a common misunderstanding to rest

1.
The Lord was addressing Pharisees - Jews living under the law of Moses - at a time that the law was still in effect, as He had not by His death fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law on behalf of all those who put their faith in Him and His saving work. He could not have told them to break the law or His mission would have been aborted as He would have been an accomplice/instigator to a transgression of the very law He came to fulfill - by living it perfectly and then dying - for us all.

2.
The Lord noted that they tithed "herb" - agricultural/farmland products - never money. And in any event, the needy, the dispossesed and the disenfranchised were more of a priority in Gods thoughts, not some mindless ritual based on 10%

His thrust was the intent of the law not the letter. A point Pharisees, legalists and Judaizers never really get.

You cannot look to the law as you are not Jewish. And if you do, you cannot be Christian.

Seek Gods face in this, do not be bound and robbed of your liberty by the traditions of men. They would have you zealous for them by excluding you by law. It supports their man-made religious structures with them at the apex giving covering? It's why people come onto NL and say tragic things like "MOGS, Prophets, Pastoers etc etc are the mouthpiece of God or Gods spokesmen". In this day and age? after the complketed and perfect work at the cross??

God bless
TV

Pilgrim.1,

If I were to say your understanding was basic, I would be being kind. Actually it's twisted, along with your logic. As Enigma has rightly pointed out on the other thread, you are a contortionist, not disimilar to the convoluted I was moved to use earlier.

(a) Did Paul or any of the apostle ever refer categorically to any part of the LAW for Christian life?

Did they refer to the Law? YES!
Where they attempting to incorporate parts into NTC? NO!

The Law has been fulfilled. Which was one of the main planks of the Lords work. Judaizers such as yourself always seek recourse to the law to bind men to their man-made religion. As circumcision was the metaphor for the Mosaic law in the epistle to the Galatians, so the tithe is here.

Did I say basic earlier? Christian righteousness is never established by keeping laws or any other outward ritual. Keeping the Law justifies no one. Attempting to keep it in part compels one to keep it in whole and seeking righteousness by the law means one falls from grace.

That alone is reason enough for me to keep rebutting your C&C theology long after any semblance of integrity and coherence has vanished from your posts on this issue.

Is the Law good and holy and just? YES, are NTC bound by it or do they attain to righteousness by adhering to it? NO!

The misunderstanding around this is used by many religionists to bind the unknowing. Please desist. Like I have said your end game was apparent from the first whistle. To justify a man-made laity/clergy - follower/leader - split, said clergy being supported by taking money from the flock of God. Well described by Paul as using the gospel as a "cloak for covetousness".

Paul likened it to "building what he had previously destroyed". You are trying to call relevent what God has made redundant.

God bless
TV

@Sister Pilgrim.1

Like a lot of politicians, to the undiscerning eye/ear, you make a seemingly compelling case, and a very believable manifesto, but it simply does not bear scrutiny.

1.
Abraham. Tithed once. Not periodically, be that yearly, thrice-yearly, every three years. To make it a pre-law practice that somehow transcends the law and settles neatly into NTC worship is nowhere bourne out by scripture.

On an ongoing basis, to whom would Abraham have tithed? Or how would he otherwise have disposed of his tithe?

There is no record of Isaac, Jacob or any other Hebrew or Israelite tithing before the advent of the levitical priesthood and the accompanying law.

Who would Isaac have tithed to? What priesthood was in effect? If there were two orders of priesthood, it is evident that there are two shadows and one fulfilling type in Christ, and none during the time of Isaac or Jacob.

Why did Jacob try and covenant to tithe if there was an edict in place? Why not just repent and pledge observance of the already enacted command?

2.
Your ploy of using Epistilery writings about giving or collection for the needy to read as "tithe & offering" is particularly disingenous, as is your fallacious view of the NT commanding a salaried ministerial class and again trying to read that as being supported by giving, which of course you read as "tithe & offering".

3.
Failure to to see that all you have succeeded in doing is re-incarnating (a dirty word in Christian circles) the now redundant mediatory priesthood, priest and non-priest classes and the consequent supporting structures. Pure man-made religion, which God amply demonstrated in the OT would never suffice in approaching Him.

4.
You further descend into error and expose your traditionally biased reading of scripture when you ascribe law bound teaching to the Apostle Paul. Claiming that his referencing the Law of Moses was in fact his declaring it still valid. Of all NT writers, the Apostle Paul was most vehemently opposed to any recourse to the law of Moses and withstood Peter and called him a hypocrite when he did so, even at what was a relatively superficial level.

More evidence of doublespeak when you attempt to use Abraham to introduce the tithe and then sneakily resort to the law (and misacribe paul as teaching it) to establish it, when you scream lounder than anyone that tithe is not by law, and that is not your premise

Would you try and convince me that you are not at all acquainted with the thrust and import of Galatians about the error and danger of trying to marry ther Judaic law with NTC life?

How about this for straters;

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.

5.
More Gobbledy-gok when you claim that tithe does not have to be 10%. You at once render the whole concept of a tithe meaningless - if it's not compulsory, not 10%, and the poor don't have to pay, what are it's distinguishing features? - and try to label it an unmistakeable NTC imperative?

6.
Claiming that The Lord did not speak at all about the types of giving, is indicative of your error of trying to income stream them. He didn't, simply because there aren't any. Giving in the Body is driven by need (and secondarily to bless). Not for salaries, programs, projects or buildings, all of which only become relevent with the man-made religion of clergy and temples and man-made traditions - like no trousers for women - and a need to support such and keep them occupied.

You are so wrong, it's alarming, and more so because the unknowing could tread long in the path of your error and all the commitant doctinal confusion. For that reason alone, I will continue to make the effort to withstand you.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
@TV01,

If you have anything to share, I expected you could have done that. If you had nothing to offer, and would rather make a career of denoucing what is in the WORD, I only ask you to offer me the ONE VERSE where God has so commissioned you to do so.

I've said this again and again - if you don't believe in tithes, no worries. If you can't offer simple answers to the simple questions I offered you in the other thread, save whatever else is left of your emptiness. If neither suggestions appeal to you, please be my guest and go on trying to prove it is your birthright to denounce it without a mandate to do so.

Whatever else makes you restless will be served according as you invite.

I have shared at length, plainly stated my position and been willing to answer any questions posed. And I am more than happy to admit errors or stand corrected in part or in whole on any point in the discussion.

I have not denounced what is in the word, I have denounced the propagation of things not in the word as a means to bind and exploit the unknowing.

I notice your continued co-opting of scriptures that speak solely to freewill giving to mean "tithe & offering" and then building whole treatises around your untruths.

I am confident that Enigma will see through you or see you off in the "Essence of tithing " thread, so I haven't bothered to post, I'm just following, but your gall in misappropriating scripture purely to sustain the unsustainable still amazes me.

So once again. No one can teach tithing by law or according to the law or under law from the OT and make it binding on NT Christians.

It's at best a purely incidental and personal observation.

Anyone can see you have a vested traditional/denominational interest in maintaining the status quo of the totally false "professional/salaried clergy" abomination. So far you have declined to 'fess up. No need. It reeks to high heavens, and would be clear to a blind man in a mudslide.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
I'm so sorry for those who ALWAYS have to tie TITHES to the Law. That way, it's easier to argue AGAINST tithes because it usually boils down to the idea that since the Law is done away with, then TITHES are done away with as well.

At least on the point, it is evident that NTC do not have to tithe on that basis. Any other basis can be discussed on it's biblical merits

pilgrim.1:
What amazes me, however, is that people often fail to understand that TITHES predated the LAW!! The Law cannot nullify what it did not originate! And that is why people should rather ask God to show them WHAT prompted Abraham to give tithes WITHOUT the slightest hint of any LAW or COMMANDMENTS!

Tithes predate Abraham, the Hebrews and the Israelites, so what? Circumcision also pre-dates the law. Again, so what? If you know of Abraham giving a tithe as a response to a prompt by God - which is relevent for NTC - pray tell.

pilgrim.1:
If you don't believe in tithes, no worries. But that should not be reason enough to castigate those who tithe, or disparage pastors and call them thieves and all sorts of despicable names! Those who castigate others are unwittingly displaying a haughty and rebellious spirit against the WORD.

Nobody is discussing this personally. Only the biblical basis - or lack thereoff - for it. Nobody is castigating those who do it, or disparaging those who teach it. But if one teaches tithing, one should be prepared to be questioned and to defend their position, as with any doctrine.
And presumably calling people haughty and rebellious is not to castigate or disparage?

pilgrim.1:
The simple thing to do is seek to understand the core issues about tithing. If at the end of the day it is not clear, then no reason to call others names and all sorts. . or even go as far as denouncing it. I just simply would like to see where in the WORD God asked anyone to denounce tithing the way some of us are prone to do.

You that understand, pray share. If it is not clear to us - by your reckoning - please be a vessel for our enlightening. I denouce it on the basis of the law and can find no other basis except at best a personal thing. And although I would personally consider it somewhat immature, would not rail against individual liberty.

God bless
TV

Seun:
Hmm, sister pilgrim.1, the worth 'tithe' means 'tenth' which is the same as 'ten percent'.

True!

pilgrim.1:
Lol, Seun. . I don't disparage that.

Don't you?

pilgrim.1:
But what many people don't understand is that tithing is not merely 10% - it is MUCH MORE than that!

It is or it isn't. If it's not 10%, it ceases to be a "tithe". So in effect you do disparage it!

pilgrim.1:
I'll share why this is not so in time to come.

Yeah, right!

pilgrim.1:
Let me resume by asking a simple question here:

That's is your preferred modus operandi; ask a seemingly "simple" question. But in truth and true to form, you are really setting the scene for you own - and glaringly obvious - traditional or denominational bias. Even if one answers the question - different to your prejudice - you'll just ride roughshod over it.

Never actually spell out a position for comment, but insinuate by slyly worded teasers that you possess some esoteric knowledge or understanding of scripture, when in fact your are sadly misled.

pilgrim.1:
What do we understand by this text:

You are not really interested in what we understand are you? It's just a poser to enable you to ram your position down everyone's throats.

pilgrim.1:
1 Cor. 9:13 & 14
"Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

The first part is a reference to the OT/Jewish worship form. The levitical Priesthood was primarily supported by the tithe.

The second part pertains to Christian practice. First note that it is those that "PREACH". This is in the sense of them being itinerant and unable to maintain a regular income providing activity as was Paul's circumstance and that of many labouring to fulfil the apostolic foundation of the church. Note, that when he could work, he did, and at a level far below his training and pedigree.

If anyone is engaged in a ministry that presents the same or similar circumstances, they should be supported at an appropriate level by the body.

Those who minister in local congregations should work like everyone else. That is the Lords charge. If they don't, or choose not to, it is not the congregations responsibility to support them. And in any event, not in any way different from any other member of the congregation who has physical needs.

There is no clergy/laity - leader/follower - split in NTC. There is no call for paid ministry in the local congreagation.

Should help nail the celebrity circuit of hirelings who roam from venue to venue with their "product led", "pseudo-Christianity" ~ ministry to "singles", "healing" "prosperity" etc.

If you do it for money - except in the rare circumstances as I outlined above - you're a hirleing or a 'ho.

pilgrim.1:
Study it carefully - you might find answers there.

Likewise.

God bless
TV