₦airaland Forum

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1446724#msg1446724 date=1188467868]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.[/quote]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,

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=33119.msg1444816#msg1444816 date=1188405913]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.[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1444831#msg1444831 date=1188406096]Please don't evade this thread[/quote]I responded didn't I?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1444831#msg1444831 date=1188406096]tediously deflect the other threads with the same arguments about the Law.[/quote]If the law comes up, will I ignore it?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1444831#msg1444831 date=1188406096]This is the reason why I opened this thread since you have evaded the same request endlessly.Cheers.[/quote]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.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1444831#msg1444831 date=1188406096]Please, take all your concerns and arguments about the Law from the other threads and post them here so we could deal with them.[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1429529#msg1429529 date=1187974891]Just for the record: before alleging anything against pilgrim.1, check carefully that you're not misquoting her. Thank you.[/quote]Yes ma !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1429529#msg1429529 date=1187974891]Simple.

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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1428574#msg1428574 date=1187964182]I never equated the PRINCIPLES to the "code", and you can't allege that I did.[/quote]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?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=61492.msg1428301#msg1428301 date=1187960712]I'm waiting. [/quote]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;

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1428167#msg1428167 date=1187958967]The context is clear - don't twist it. I offered that its PRINCIPLES are applicable, did I not?[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1428144#msg1428144 date=1187958678]I'd prefer if you address me cordially and leave out the now weathered "weaker sex".[/quote]Sorry dear ! Abeg no vex, I'll try and be the gentleman we all know I really am.

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 .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1419556#msg1419556 date=1187793483]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1419556#msg1419556 date=1187793483]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.[/quote]Is that a threat or a promise sweetie !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1419556#msg1419556 date=1187793483]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![/quote]We have a tough nut, a fighter! My heart fails me, my bones turn to jelly!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1419556#msg1419556 date=1187793483]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.[/quote]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!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1418968#msg1418968 date=1187787093]Lol, they don't see it as an instruction to tithe.[/quote]Keep misascribing, misjiving and generally exposing your rather poor contextual grasp of scripture. Your own acada na fancy dress !

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1418968#msg1418968 date=1187787093]I was coming to that;[/quote]Too late, beat you to it!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1418968#msg1418968 date=1187787093]NOW begin asking my own questions[/quote]Yawn!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1418968#msg1418968 date=1187787093]since they've made it their bírthright to ONLY ask questions and NEVER proffer answers to the queries others present[/quote]Query asked, query expounded, query answered. Presumably you won't hear it under the cacaphony of self you noise abroad.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1418968#msg1418968 date=1187787093]However, we are not told to observe the LAW. It was rather "the weightier matters" of the Law that Christ pointed to.[/quote]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 !}

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1418968#msg1418968 date=1187787093]I'm waiting to see how they want to disregard what the Lord Jesus said about those matters: "judgment, mercy, and faith".[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1418028#msg1418028 date=1187772587]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?[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=73847.msg1415850#msg1415850 date=1187716814]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.[/quote]You love it! And the effete nature of your arguements aside, are glorying in the attention .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=73847.msg1415850#msg1415850 date=1187716814]Whenever you guys are ready to DISCUSS issues[/quote]Ready already. Please bring it!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=73847.msg1415850#msg1415850 date=1187716814]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.[/quote]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

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=39490.msg1416559#msg1416559 date=1187728685]I've been sharing on this and offered answers to every single question that was posed [color=#770077][/quote]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