₦airaland Forum

Gombs:
Just in case you missed it on the other post. I have already summarised it in more than 2 sentences. Thanks

Gombs:
Yeah! Surely. Here's Hagin's summary in a sentence.

"A stupid man's report (vooks et al) of what a clever man says (Hagin) can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears read into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Then with regards some folks who are saying Paul rebuked Peter in public glare, i summarised it thus;

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaardtags

Nlmediator's summary is below

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”  ― George Carlin

Meanwhile, my post you quoted has nothing to do with firstfruits, if you want to say something relating to someone else's post you quoted, make sure they are related. I have given my summary of what Hagin said, flip this thread 2-3 pages back, if you aren't satisfied, I'm sorry then, nothing much I can do.

Gombs:
Those who wants us to go to that WoF discussion, should endeavour to make it the one that went with nairaland tsunami. Oh yeah! Not the one you guys sat and discussed yourselves. That thread would be brought back, by me, hopefully. There, you'd see where true gospel preachers in serious blunder, yet, not being able to admit. That thread transformed Drummaboy to WinsomeX, and some others to rabid fellows.

There was where DB said there is no such thing as God kind of faith, his minions shedemidemi, babagnoni, goshen etc were behind him. Goshen, shedemidemi has had treasonable blunder, but thank God for NL tsunami.

When the tsunami took those threads, they immediately opened this one WinsomeX aka DB claims was a success, yet they all seem to have an agenda of putting it in every thread they visit.

If you guys want to discuss, bring back the old one, or ask me to... or on second thought, I will bring it back.

Now, back to the book. I'm having a bit issue with my modem o, and I don't want to take the sim off my tab and put in the modem. But, if push gets to shove, I will. Thanks for your patience

Bidam:
Haba Pastor! Where did you read in that verse that tithe was annulled? To get a proper context go back to chapter 7 and tell me your findings.

Just like vooks you are also reading carnally into the scriptures. Because there was a change of the covenant doesnt mean the new covenant doesn't have its own laws which is spiritual, eternal and internal.

Bidam:
Mr vooks. Atleast you did not address me with those foul languages in your post here. But atleast an apology would have been in order, don't you think?

mbaemeka:
Nope they didn't. And Your point is?

As for your post above (in blue font), there's alot you need to learn about Brother James. Maybe you should study that book of Galatians well and then the book of 1 Corinthians. You may learn a few things.

mbaemeka:
What does this have to do with anything I have said? I don't know why you are overlooking the very obvious facts again.

1. In vs 12 Peter withdrew himself fearing THEM.
2. The THEM joined him and acted like hypocrites.
3. Barnabas joined THEM as well as few other Jews that hung around Paul (all leaders).
4. Paul corrected Peter infront of THEM ALL because Peter was like you said the 'Chief culprit'.

Do you get it now? The THEM referred to the CHIEF MEN that came from James as well as Barnabas and a few other Jews- all leaders.

mbaemeka:

Knowing about the incidence was not Paul's intention. Someone says to Paul "James said without circumcision we Gentiles are not truly saved". Paul says "thats wrong no matter who says that. In fact while I was in Antioch I had to correct Peter infront of the other leaders when he suggested the same thing. This is not what the Lord taught me". Paul is clearly telling them to disregard the circumcision debate. Period.

Please drop the shenanigans. Are you insinuating that AFTER the Jerusalem Council James still held onto circumcision?
Paul is saying Peter fell into the Torah Error and I did not spare him so please drop it.
The intentions is debate for another day/year/century, we are ANALYZING a public rebuke of an erring apostle

And also when you say 'publicly' it depends on what you mean. When James told Paul about forbidding meat sacrificed to idols, he said it in 'public' I.e to the hearing of all the other leaders in the meeting. But he didn't say it publicly to the hearing of 'floor members' of the new Christian faith.

There are just some things you don't say in front of babes.
One thing is certain, Paul did not have a 'private' session with Peter over the matter. I will leave you to your imagination as you try to conjure and analyze the spirituality of THEM ALL, just remember that THEM ALL fell into the same hypocrisy

The same attitude you demonstrate is why sexua.l abuse in Catholic church persist(ed) for decades

Bidam:
Why would Paul says to be carnally minded is death but to be l
'spiritually minded' is life and peace? The difference between me and you is i see the tithe as a form of giving which is an ACT of worship and a legitimate kingdom principle that is NOWHERE condemned by the apostles.

An ACT of worshhip that attracts tags such as ROBBER and failure to which DEVOURERS descend on you? And why not circumcise as well as an ACT of Worship? SMH

Can you quote where i said so? I mentioned sanitary(hygiene) rules amongst others.


If they are not relevant, the apostles wouldn't have quoted them extensively to form the foundation of the NT. So i laff in tongues when 'novices' like you wake up one day to say we should discard the OT. Even the early church never had the NT for a span of 20yrs. What torah do you think they were using? Physics textbooks abi? It smacks of bible hermaneutics.

Relevance is not proved by quoting. Paul even quoted extra-Biblical poems to drive points home sir. They are part of the Old Covenant and we are not UNDER that. Christ had to die to redeem you from that! And why not keep them Feasts as well? Start with the Sabbath

So what strawman argument are you making then so you can knock yourself out? I already showed you in previous posts where the apostles of old drew "spiritual truth" from the OT. E.g Paul using the mosaic law to drive home a simple principle about giving.

Paul drew SEVERAL examples and they had one thing in common; supporting ministers of the gospel. This he deemed a RIGHT that he ocassionally resisted invoking like in Thessalonika, not threatening hellfire and curses to exact the same
. He could have easily invoked tithing 'principles' but he didn't. He instead alluded to the OVERALL sacrificial system where the priests ate offerings

No, it is rather unfortunate that you are the ignorant folk here. Does Act 15 mentioned lying, disobedient to parents, covetousness, stealing,gossips, laziness,cursing,bitterness, strife, blasphemy amongst a plethora of laws found in OT? Or maybe the Holy spirit forgot to "mention" them according to you. Or did you not read where the Apostles took note that Moses was read in their synagogues every sabbath? Or is it only the 4 requirements we gentiles are adhering to till date as christians who have good conduct?
All those things you mention are subsequently mentioned by ALL NT writers and the reference point was God-Holy Spirit teaching man from the heart

I can also argue too that if God so wanted BADLY to end tithing in all its form anywhere in the NT; there definitely would have been CLEAR condemnation of tithing in the teachings of the apostles just as there was clear condemnation on EXTERNAL circumcision as a REQUIREMENT for salvation by apostle Paul to the galatian church.

Terrible equivocation
The reason there was NO condemnation of tithing is because it was NEVER practiced save by the Jews to the Levites. It was NEVER taught that apostles stood in the place of priests. If it had been taught, you would not have missed it in at least one of the NT exhortations to charity or supporting ministry

Ok...keep your bile and bitterness off the thread if you want us to argue reasonably as adults. Last time i checked the forum is anonymous so this allegations on my person which is false by the way is uncalled for. You attack the message not the persons. Or i desist quoting you. I have already told you tithe is a form of giving and believers are free to express their givings in the form of tithes today since it is nowhere condemn in the NT or even the OT.

Nowhere is tithing taught as free, it is always by way of compulsion and malachi curses not to mention the Devourer are bandied around for a good measure. If you can honestly confess to NEVER having taught or heard in your church the malachi curses invoked on the non-tithers, please say so and I will duly apologize and withdraw my statement(s)

Freewill sacrifices are also nowhere condemned in either NT or OT so I wonder why you don't offer them as per Leviticus 22:23?

I wonder why folks take it upon themselves to argue uneccesarily against the idea of christians tithing in church.
I wonder why folks strain and twist scriptures to justify a doctrine that was injected into CHristianity 500 years AFTER Pentecost. What is the source of this 'new' revelation? Why was Holy Spirit not interested in sharing these powerful truths with the primitive/early church?

mbaemeka:
You still don't get it. 'Them all' referred to the Leaders I.e Silas and Barnabas as well as other Chief men from James. Period.

mbaemeka:
Paul wasn't publishing anyone's error to anybody let alone his church in Galatia. The Church in Galatia were having a similar issue which was in the same vein instigated by the same Brother James from Jerusalem (or his people). The body of Christ at the point revered James so much and many allude this to the fact that he was Jesus' brother. So when the Galatian church complained to Paul that a "Higher authority" said circumcision was required for Gentiles to truly be saved Paul had to refer them to a similar instance when he had to correct Peter (one whom Jews also revered). Merely gleaming through the Book of Galatians you would see Paul making statements like "those who seemed to be Pillars" and so on adding nothing to his message as he got his from Jesus himself.

So Paul correcting Peter was an example he sited in trying to show the Gentiles that he knew more about the Gentile salvation than the so called "pillars". How again does this compare with the idiocy that some of you employ? Especially when none of you 'Pastor' any church or lead any followership whatsoever and instead of taking cue from the lord himself you raise bible portions that you barely understand to support such folly.

Image123:
Calling anyone obtuse or negro is not cool, just in case you don't know. You don't even need to be a christian to know this. Remove the log in your eyes instead of intensifying vain efforts trying to condemn others.

mbaemeka:
I can see you edited your post but still ended it with the same inanity that I have sought to address since time immemorial. The OTHERS and THEM ALL were not floor members. Remember this was like a house and not necessarily in the synagogue (hence the "eating" so it was the Chief men (leaders) that joined in with Peter. Paul had to correct them all because they are the same ones who will go about preaching the gospel. He wanted them to do so devoid of hypocrisy.

mbaemeka:
Again with the warped logic initiated by the caprice to rebut the post without reading thoroughly to see the grey areas that are lost on you.

Paul and Barnabas are in Antioch. Peter comes to join in and is cohabiting with the Gentiles there in. Shortly after, Jews from Jerusalem come and Peter shifts away from the Gentiles. The Jewish brethren join him in the hypocrisy and even Barnabas, Paul's companion is equally swayed and begins to follow through. Paul sees the hypocrisy and corrects Peter in front of them all because:

1. Peter is a leader and he preached to Gentiles first.
2. Peter knew the truth but acted otherwise.
3. Peter's action made the other Jews (that respected him) to begin to copy him.

So Paul corrected them all by correcting the man who began the hypocrisy- Peter.

There's now a similar problem in Galatia. Jewish folks have infiltrated the Gentile camp and have begun sowing seeds of discord by mixing the law with grace. The Galatians are swayed by the brethren because these same brethren came from almighty James! So Paul is telling his church "there is nothing like mixing law and grace no matter who tells you that. In fact, in Antioch I corrected Peter when he acted like a hypocrite because he being a jew acts like a Gentile but then tried to force Gentiles to do what Jews do. I corrected him because Christ places no such bondage on us"

That's the lesson we are to learn there and it was communicated by a leader to his church.

Bidam:
Like i always say, your scripture logic is flawed, are you reading letters or the Spirit behind the letters? You might as well take up the argument with Paul when he says we should present ourselves AS SACRIFICES to God.

Scriptures never defined tithing as such. Antithers coined that definition using leviticus. A doctrine is formed when we look at the WHOLE not some single verse.it is actually an error on your part to pick a single verse and run with it. It's just like the circumcision you mentioned, do you realise that circumcision of the heart is found in the OT as well as the NT? So where did the apostles copied it from? So also the passover paul says the corinthians should keep, with the bread of sincerity and truth, do you see how he went and gleaned the spirit behind why the passover was kept by the jews? Does it mean christians should physically observe the passover because paul says to keep the festival?

Oga..Giving is also freewill in the OT..there is what is called free will offerings abi no be so? My argument here is christians can draw guidelines from the OT scriptures for practical giving today and that doesn't mean we come under the operation of the old covenant of judaism, in the same way apostle Paul drew largely from OT scriptures and the Law of Moses to teach about christian giving for ministers of the gospel so it is in the same manner that many Christains express their giving in the form of tithes in their churches.

mbaemeka:
How you can see the obvious truths and still clutch on to strawman's is what is most befuddling of all. It might come to you as a shock but I have done a very good research on what occured in ANTIOCH and not Galatia as you posited. I however agree with you that Paul's rebuke of Peter happened after the Jerusalem council but I disagree with you on the who and who that were there while it transpired and it is not hard to know why.

Shortly after the Jerusalem meeting Paul and Barnabas were on their way to Antioch to continue with the Gentile commission. James (the leader of the Jerusalem church) sent his 'Chief Men' or 'Excos' to join them and ensure that Paul adhered to the conclusions of the meeting i.e give to the poor, don't let them eat meat strangled or dedicated to Idols etc., the very things that Paul was willing to do. Peter later joined in before Silas and co (the Chief men) arrived and behaved himself only to act like a hypocrite when they came. Some of the men that came with Silas also behaved hypocritically and their antics swayed Barnabas to join in. This attitude infuriated Paul so he corrected Peter infront of them all. Them all being- the chief men like Silas and co, (co means other Jews that travelled with him) and Barnabas, Paul's companion. Paul did it to their hearing because they were all LEADERS whose conduct was important because the new members will always seek to emulate them. Paul was correcting Peter in love. He didn't do so in front of any crowd or congregation neither did he take it to a group of the misinformed. Where do you think he learned it from? JESUS.

When John the Baptist started expressing doubts about Jesus' messiahship he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was truly the sent one. Jesus healed a couple of people in their presence and told them to relay the information to John that: the blind saw, lame walked etc. Then at the end he whispered a correction to John. He said "blessed is he who he is not offended by me". Immediately after doing that Jesus faced the crowd and began to praise John publicly. He said not a single man born of a woman (prior to Jesus) had a greater calling than John. You see, Jesus corrected John in secret but he praised him openly. That's what love does.

Now do the needful and measure the reactions of you and some of your ilk with Jesus' or the word and let's see how close you measure up.

dein77:
Brother, the matter tire me. I'm a nonconformist, and believe strongly in challenging hitherto unchallenged unethical and unhealthy practices.

The RCCG administration is akin to the Nigerian system where almost every resources produced in states are sent to Abu a, thereby making the centre very over bloated and ridiculously corrupt.

Just as there can't be meaningful growth and progress until Nigeria practices true and fiscal federalism, so shall the RCCG local parishes struggle till the same changes are made.

BTW, I don't know where it's written in Scriptures that we shouldn't question or lovingly challenge administrative irregularities!

"Making a New Testament application of Old Testament technicalities violates every principle of Bible interpretation, especially when there isn't a single New Testament usage of the word "firstfruits" in the context in which it is being preached by some ministers.

Gombs:
If the above colored is what you lot want to use to nullify first fruits, if from it you conclude Hagin condemned it, why then doesn't it apply To tithing Hagin wrote about?


For the last time, Hagin was using the above colored to say those preachers who claim to be priests and that firstfruits belong to them, that was the technicalities. It however is not the center point of the book, why you guys are carrying it on the head is bewildering.

Bidam:
This is actually a foolish analogy. Firstly the laws given to moses where based on love and not an order. God was their physician, it's just like a doctor advising you not to take sugar because you are diabetic, there are dietery laws, sanitary laws, health laws, civil laws etc which benefited the israelite and it was never meant to harm them. If you wanna argue the tithe, you should have used a financial law of equality exhibited by the early church in Acts 4.

Now i am using the word "law" here as a principle that guides human conduct and behaviour here so illiterates like you and goshen won't misquote what i said and over blow it out of proportion. And that was why Paul says a christian conduct should be governed by LOVE which is the ultimate law that encapsulate the OT Laws.

Ofcos if you love, you will give, no arguments here. Antithers that argue over a miserly 10pcent are hardly givers in their assembly. I am talking from experience here.

Bidam:
ok can you show us where it was nullified? As far as i can remember it was incorporated and regulated under the mosaic law.

Tithe was never ONLY agricultural produce to start with. That's is an antithing mantra..to explain away why they don't tithe.

If you really believe the word of God, you won't condemn people who give their tithes as a FORM OF GIVING since no where it is condemn in the NT and you should be in a local assembly and be actively involve in giving for the expansion of God's kingdom. Sadly you are alone.

Gombs:
^^
So, Hagin condemned firstfruits giving? Yes?

Bidam:
ok quit the insult let me help your folly. Show me where tithe was annulled in the NT scriptures.pls show the word tithe there o..no be ur grammer i wan see abeg.

Image123:
Abraham's tithe is as much the Word of God as is Leviticus. Are you trying to cut out of the Bible?

Image123:
To be ACCURATE, the scriptures you quoted says PAUL WITHSTOOD PETER. It doesn't say Paul rebuked Peter. There is a difference. Also, IT WAS TO THE FACE. What effort have you made in withstanding any of those fellows to the face(assuming you are even mates). This pattern is what Jesus commanded.

Well, i don't know for sure how many people were there, and nobody has evidence to be cocksure. i do know though that the correction was done in the spirit of meekness and love. That was what Paul preached. It wasn't done with intent to ridicule, malign and falsely accuse or condemn.

Gombs:
my man forget these guys... leave them in their ignorance. Imagine Paul in the midst of thousands of brethren rebuking Peter.

Image123:
HAHAHAHA, now fellas are "refuting" Hagin? i thought this book of his was the bomb praised to high heavens? Confused lot.

mbaemeka:
1. Certain came from James.
2. When they came he [Peter] withdrew and separated himself from the gentiles fearing THEM [certain that came from James]
3. Other Jews like Barnabas too were carried away by the dissimulation.
4. Paul rebuked Peter before THEM [certain that came from James] all [including the other Jews around Paul like Barnabas]

Who were these certain men? Where they 'floor members' or 'Excos'? Why did James (leader of the Jerusalem church) send them?

Those who have eyes to see will see while the incorrigibly positioned hooligans will keep trolling by making moot points here and there.

Image123:
You may need to dedicate time to reading my previous posts on tithes on this forum, i really don't have the time to babysit your types.

Image123:
You imagined that if you met a healed leper, you'd prescribe that he offers animal sacrifices because ALL SCRIPTURES IS INSPIRED, epic.