₦airaland Forum

anukulapo: Don't you think the mix multitude that left egypt was a SIGN that it was applicable to not just the Israelites

are we using sign language now? if it was applicable to 'all men' i believe it will be stated some where. abi? that's what i want the man to clarify.

Ihedinobi: @Zikkyy

Did you read my posts at all?

i did. it's just that your posts is a bit confusing. i assumed you were referring to the law, but you said i should stop assuming and that you are talking about the covenant. Yet you keep referring to the law. The thread is titled the law of Moses. You can see the issues am having. see below for another post you made where you used the law and covenant in your teaching.

Ihedinobi: was it Jewish law? Yes. Were all men then called to be with God as the Jews were? Obviously. So it was a covenant that God was offering to everyone reaching for Him.

so if the written law is not the covenant, what covenant are you talking about?

In another post, you referred to parties entering into covenant with God....

Ihedinobi: However, as Moses did, and Jesus too later witnessed, the parties with whom God was entering into the covenant were stiffnecked. And that meant that Moses had to make some "compromises" as it were.

...if the covenant applied to the Eqyptians, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites and other tribes of that era, how come they were not aware of this covenant, and when Moses made some 'compromise' are you saying the compromise applies to these other tribes as well? How did it happen that the Israelite made a covenant on behalf of their next door neighbor and even the Israelite were not aware their next door neighbor were part of this covenant? reading your posts, i don't find answers. maybe you can point me to the exact post that answers my questions. Thanks

Ihedinobi: @Zikkyy

Did you read my posts at all?

Are you saying you are no longer providing the needed clarifications you cannot be a good teacher if you run aware from questions.

Ihedinobi: You need not assume anything, Zikkyy. What I meant is in black and white and it is the Old Covenant not the written law.

My brother this is even more confusing o! when i assume it to be the law, it was based on your statement below:

Ihedinobi: Moses's law was this: you will do such and such in order that God may do such and such. That was the Covenant.

now that you are saying it is not the written law, what then is the 'old covenant'? please clarify sir.

my understanding of the mosaic covenant you will find in Exodus, and it was written and agreed to by both parties:

Exodus 24 NIV:
7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”
8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

Ihedinobi: And, it was to apply at the time that it was made.

if it applies to all men at the time it was made, how come it was only the Israelite that was present to sign the agreement? and for the Israelite to reap the benefits in covenant, other 'covenant members' will have to suffer:

Exodus 23 NIV:
20 “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. 22 If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. 23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out.

My thinking is that if it was applicable to all men at the time including the Egyptians that enslaved the Israelites, i believe they should be co-beneficiaries. abi? what do you think?

Ihedinobi: Now, this covenant was made with the Hebrews but God made as crystal as possible that He meant for it to apply to all men.

You stated somewhere you willing to provide clarification if needed. so i need clarification here. when you say God meant it to apply to all men, i assume you refer to the written law. are you saying it was meant for all men at the time the covenant was made i.e. including non jews. or was it to become applicable to all men after Christ? thanks in advance.

MostHigh: Mr man How would you like me to respond?

Like Some slippery sly snake charmer charming ever so nicely?

All a bunch of Lawless.

Yall just Lawless

I asked a question, do you want me to offer a cow as burnt offering to the Lord? what exactly do you mean by lawless?

Image123: But grace came to help us overcome sin.
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

am happy you know this one

Image123: Until we realise our guilt and repent, believing in faith, we are still UNDER the law.

You can be under the law only if you subject yourself to the law. The law was meant to govern the Jews only. The gentiles were never subject to the law and gentile converts did not go through a transition phase of first subjecting themselves to the law before coming to Christ. abi ya bible teach you that one? This ya sermon no correct

Bidam: IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND His principles in the old how can you KNOW His mind in the NEW.

at the rate you going you will never understand God's principles in the old. you have been reading and practicing it for this long and you still don't understand the principles? you will end up like the jews o! they are still waiting for the messiah You can see the law will teach you nothing as long as you continue to apply as stated (subjecting ya self to the law). My brother leave moses alone and see me for a two weeks 'crash course' on understanding the law, so you can move up to the real stuff (i.e. chilling with Jesus ).

MostHigh: Nobody is talking about exonoration here

The question here is obedience.

And lawlessness as a result of disobedience

Yashua was obedient to the LAW to the end and so also ALL TE APOSTLES.

This man, stop responding like a computer jor what this talk about disobedience? are you saying we should continue with the burnt offerings or what?

ayoku777: Until we all understand that being led of the Spirit is not the same as obeying the law even if we do similar things under both, this argument will stay. Christ has fulfilled the law and our salvation and righteousness begins and end with faith in Him.

People like Bidam cannot get to that state where the spirit does the leading. There so much at stake here. Am sure Bidam rejected the law that was to be written on his heart because he did not see tithe on the list the man will continue to manage & defend the Torah until tithe is deleted from it.

ayoku777: Lol, you think? I believe the problem is humility. Too many valid points have been raised to prove grace and erase the doctrine of works for justification. But the scriptures we raise are always ignored or only the lines that can be argued with are addressed. To me its pride.

christemmbassey is very correct. The reason the Moses law lovers refused to let go is tithe and related activities like firstfruit, e.t.c.

Bidam: What Paul teaches throughout his letters is that only the Spirit of God, received through faith, gives life to the written text of the Bible. The Bible is to be followed in faith, as it is the way God Himself gave us to conduct our lives.

The Bible is not meant to be followed in the flesh:

Romans 7:14a - For we know that the law is spiritual.

Followers of mosaic law follow in the flesh. If you don't follow in the flesh then you no longer follow mosaic law.

Bidam: There are millions of present-day professing Christians who actually believe that this 'apostle was the founder of a “New Gospel of Grace”. It is this teaching that has opened the door of the church to the world: unrestricted license, freedom and liberty from all law to any who will accept and believe the new Gospel. It is this interpretation which has heralded these present times of lawlessness and crime without proper judgment in the world.

Not from all law, only freedom from the mosaic law.

peteregwu: now had it been u are a worker in the church u will have a heavy heart for pastors. my friend u dont know what it entails being a leader. u think its just going to work and receiving salaty at the end of the month.

well, until then

This is no justification for preaching an unbiblical practice (for Christians).

peteregwu: it is now personal to answer if you ars worker or not in the church.

Sorry, I don't do personal stuff online.

peteregwu: NO, THEY ALSO USED IT FOR THE GOSPEL.

we are talking about the quote you made in your first post (i think). you said the contributions in Acts 4 was for the apostle's work to progress. see it below

peteregwu: GIVING TO THE LORD BRINGS OPEN DOORS
It brings joy and blessings when one gives to the Lord for His work. U will not lack. "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, [35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Acts 4:34-35 KJV.

If read above, they gave to the apostles for the work to make progress.

peteregwu: hmmm....I CAN SEE. SO THEY PUT IN YOUR HEAD TO FORCE MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET. OR YOUR PASTOR PUT HIS HAND IN YOUR POCKET TO FORCE MONEY OUT, RIGHT?

Not me. i don't give a tenth of my income to a pastor. am referring to those who that been harassed with malachi 3:10, they had no option but to tithe.

peteregwu: UNTIL U BECOME A LEADER, THEN U WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRINCIPLES OR WAYS OF GOD IS ALL ABOUT.

I think what i will see is the difficulty pastors face when it comes to fund raising. the reason is a significant proportion (could be up 80%) of congregation are not Christians. and that is the truth. pastors have failed in their drive to win converts for Christ, so they settle for the money now. I strongly believe you are one of them.

peteregwu: PLS ONE QUESTION, I KNOW U ARE BORN AGAIN. BUT ARE U A WORKER IN YOUR CHURCH?

i think this is too personal a question to answer on a public forum.

Ihedinobi: @bolded: that means that you were mistaken earlier.

Mistaken for where? am ever consistent. you were the one reading wrong meanings to ma post. see my post again:

Zikkyy: He called it shadow abi? he did not it was the real thing. i will advise you go for the real stuff and stop chasing shadows that will take you nowhere.

i did not say say shadows don't describe. that was your interpretation. all i stated here was that the shadow is not the same as the real thing. it is what it is; a shadow. simple.

Ihedinobi: Are you not the one interpreting useful as opposed to necessary, Zikkyy, or was that Paul?

interpreting useful is not the same thing as me replacing paul's words with mine. all i did was interpret Paul's statement.

*am really feeling like the injured party here but no wahala.*

Ihedinobi: Oh, that's covered by "instruction", isn't it?

Not exactly. it's actually covered by 'pastoral instruction'

Ihedinobi: So what was the nonsense about not saying that I'm dishonest about?

Considering the possibility does not make you dishonest. i will only consider you to be a dishonest person if and when you decide to pretend.

Ihedinobi: You lie, Zikkyy.

How? that i got my facts right?

Ihedinobi: Of course, how could it be indeed. It was me not Goshen who was saying that of tithing were being practiced as it should be, so-and-so would be collecting it, right? You're very dishonest, Zikkyy, and it is annoying me right now very much.

I think the problem here is due to you reading me wrongly. i guess it's one of the hazards that comes with communicating with questions if we communicate normally, i don't think we'll have this mis-understanding.

Ihedinobi: Terrible lie, Zikkyy. Very terrible indeed.

na wa o!

i really don't see how i lied, and my posts here were made in good faith. but if it will make you happy, i guess i have to apologize. so brother Ihedinobi, am very sorry

Ihedinobi: So it does not describe anything but you agree that it was a shadow of things to come? Shadows are not descriptions, are they?

Shadows are description but be careful how you use it. try measuring the lenght of ya shadow at 10am 12noon, 2pm and 4pm and tell me which of these measurement correctly reflects ya height. can i tell ya complexion from ya shadow? i read somewhere the jews are still expecting the messiah. why? afterall, they owned (was given only to them) this shadow you talk about.

Ihedinobi: Ok, Zikkyy, it's useful not necessary, right? I see what you're saying. We might as well box up our Bibles since the benefits derivable from it are optional, mm. I hear you. Never mind "desire the sincere milk of the word" or other Scriptures just like that. Good one, Zikkyy.

see me see wahala what's my own? when am not the one that wrote that bible verse. if you have issues with the use of the word 'useful' go and resolve it with apostle paul abeg

Ihedinobi: What purpose again did you say the Scriptures are notuseful for? Instruction? Or exhortation? What?

the part where you attempt to use the (mosaic) law to figure out why you are giving 10% of ya income to your pastor

Ihedinobi: And your implying that I might pretend not to know what law you were talking about was not an indictment of my honesty? Why "just in case" if you didn't think there was the possibility of a case?

in everything (..well.. almost), there is always that possibility. that's why people do risk management. you did not pretend abi? so no wahala

Ihedinobi: You answered a question and I asked if you understood it and you ask me "which question"? Beyond telling you that the question I asked if you understood was the same one you tried to answer, what exactly do you expect of me, Zikkyy?

i answered a lot of questions with you it's difficult to know which answer or which question. you need to be specific

Ihedinobi: Ok. So you're alright manufacturing your own facts?

....and 99.9% of the time, am right i don't manufacture facts out of nothing. it was right there, in the tone of ya post.

Ihedinobi: That you were and are still being despicably dishonest. You suspected? Based on what? Goshen's logic?

how can it be Goshen's logic when you know Goshen does not consider Jesus a tithe collector. which one be 'despicably dishonest' for this matter. in fact, you should be praising me for being so good afterall i did not make any false accusation, abi?

Ihedinobi: See the first post? How did I turn Jesus into a tithe collector? Was it my reasoning that made Him the tithe collector or was it Goshen's?

@bolded, yes. Goshen was not thinking Jesus.

Ihedinobi: And the second? What made Goshen's theory the Gospel of Ihedinobi?

Goshen's theory does not consider Jesus as a tithe collector, but Ihedinobi's interpretation did. i think you are just not happy i can read you with so much ease it's not my fault you know.

Ihedinobi: You insist that I made Jesus a tithe collector and I'm supposed to understand that as a question as to whether tithing is acceptable under the New Covenant?

It simple, if you believe Jesus collects tithe, then you already agree that tithing is acceptable under the new covenant. no be so?

Ihedinobi: Is it now? Why does the writer of Hebrews describe it as a shadow of things to come?

He called it shadow abi? he did not it was the real thing. i will advise you go for the real stuff and stop chasing shadows that will take you nowhere.

Ihedinobi: So the Holy Spirit was wrong when He said through Paul that every bit of Scripture is necessary to the believer?

The holy spirit cannot be wrong. now i don't remember seeing the word 'necessary' in that bible verse. anyways Paul said scripture is useful (i.e. there are benefit to be derived from using it), but not for this purpose. if you rendered assistance to a stranger that was stranded on your way to work this morning and you cannot explain/understand why you helped him. the law book cannot not help you. the law book will only tell you do this; don't do that.

Ihedinobi: I think I've let you get away with calling me dishonest enough. Please produce one example of a pretence I've made in my discussions with you or any one else.

Who said you are dishonest? read my post very well o! see my comment below;

Zikkyy: Just in case you pretend not to know what law am talking about, i meant the mosaic law

shine ya eye and focus on the bolded

peteregwu: IF THE APOSTLES WHERE NOT RUNNING MOTHERLESS BABY HOMS, WHAT THEN DID THEY USE WHAT WAS GIVEN FOR.

So you agree the disciples did not use the contributions for spreading the gospel that's good.

peteregwu: IF THE APOSTLES WHERE NOT RUNNING MOTHERLESS BABY HOMS, WHAT THEN DID THEY USE WHAT WAS GIVEN FOR.

let me rephrase so you will understand; the work of the apostles was not to run a motherless babies home. The contributions went towards meeting the daily needs of the believers.

peteregwu: NOW U WERE SAYING " CONTRIBUTION". HAHAHA....WHAT DIFFERENT DOES IT MAKE?

A lot of difference. contribution is biblical for Christians

peteregwu: HOW AMAZING IS PEOPLE TRYING TO TWIST THE WORD. WHY ARE U CONTRIBUTING THEN? WHY NOT KEEP QUIET AND REMAIN IN YOUR HOUSE WITHOUT GOING TO CHURCH. SO LONG U HAVE DECIDED TO REMAIN STINGY. HOW MUCH DO U WANT TO GIVE THAT WIL BE ENOUGH FOR GOD. NO ONE CAN GIVE MORE THAN GOD. U WANT PEOPLE OR GOD TO BEG U TO GIVE?

I wonder what this is all about. i do know it is not a response to anything have said. is this the result of frustration or anger? are you experiencing a decrease in tithe collections due to the activities of anti-tithe crusaders?

peteregwu: IF U ALSO SAY GOD HAS TAKING ABOD IN THE HEART OF MEN, SO CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT GO TO CHIRCH TO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD AND FELLOWSHIP TOGETHER...THEY WILL REMAIN UNDER THE HEAT OF THE SUN AM RAIN ABI? THEY WIL NT PAY FOR NEPA BILS OR WATER, RIGHT?

Nobody is saying you should not. But don't result to coercing members to get the funding you need. Like i said earlier, if there is a need for members to tackle, they can always contribute. You are just too obsess with tithe to see clearly. What if N10,000 was needed to solve the need and the total tithe collection is just N5,000? what's wrong with the members contributing the N10,000?

peteregwu: THE PASTORS IN THE VILLAGE WILL NOT NEED MONEY TO CATER FOR THE UPKEEP OF THOSE IN DESPERATE NEED, RIGHT? THE CHURCH, WILL BE WAITING FOR CONTRIBUTIONS EVERYDAY, RIGHT?

what's wrong with that? if the church believes they need a reserve fund for emergency, let them contribute to the fund, simple.

peteregwu: MY FRIEND, AM SORRY, U NO NOTHING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY OR PASTORSHIP. U DONT EVEN KNOW THE CHALLENGES THAT IS INVOLVED IN PADTORING JUST 10 PEOPLE, HOW MUCH MORE THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS.

Maybe i don't. but i do know that it is wrong to force cash out of congregation.

This peteregwu guy must be a pastor

peteregwu: It brings joy and blessings when one gives to the Lord for His work. U will not lack. "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, [35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Acts 4:34-35 KJV.

If read above, they gave to the apostles for the work to make progress.

the apostles were not running a motherless babies home and the contributions was not for funding the work of the apostles.

peteregwu: so, u say paying of tithe is wrong or unbiblical.

yes, tithe is unbiblical for Christians

peteregwu: now, u want the church to be borrowing money from the bank to sponsor her work, right? then u must be a very wicked person. will money fall from heaven and fall on the roof of the church or on the head of the pastor.

what happens to contributions? are you saying church members that would ordinarily 'tithe' will not contribute? You don't see or think clearly due to your obsession with tithe.

peteregwu: when the Lord say we should pay tithe and offering for meat(finance) to be in His House so that the church will not borrow. how will the church build the house of God if tithe an offering is not paid.

The Lord has taken up residence in the heart of believers. he does not need tithe and offering in his house anymore. you think God lives in that structure you call church?

peteregwu: how will the church send pastors out to win souls or establish branches in remote areas. how will the church take care of bills. how will the church meet the demands of burial and so many financial needs when it arises if the tithe and offering is not paid.

Contributions

peteregwu: The bible says we should give to God also.

Nobody is saying you should not give to God, but don't force others to adopt your approach. that's all.

Ihedinobi: Why would you think so, Zikkyy?

see below

Ihedinobi: Whichever was the one you were responding to, Zikkyy.

Ihedinobi: Well, when you want to know what I think aboutt something, ask questions, Zikkyy.

Knowing your response is going to be a question, why ask? you know you don't have a reputation for answering questions

Ihedinobi: Nothing in my response to Goshen at the point that you came in at all suggested that I thought that Jesus receives tithes. If I did not later offer that I believe that He does, you'd have nothing to stand on asking the question you're asking, Zikkyy. I never expressed or implied that Jesus receives tithes until my recent admissions that I believe that He does. I expressly stated that per Goshen's reasoning, it would be Jesus that is in the place of Aaron not the pastors in churches.

Now that my suspicion been confirm, what's the wahala? that i was wrong for suspecting?

Ihedinobi: So you were saying precisely nothing, Zikkyy, until I said that indeed I believe that Jesus is the ultimate tithe receiver.

I have to say you did a good job turning the nothing to something. Thanks

Ihedinobi: Now that I've owned what you assumed of me, however, I still had to ask your question for you and all of a sudden, I'm the one just figuring it out. Why don't you quote where you asked whether tithing is a principle of the New Covenant in relation to this particular discussion?

Provide me with that quote, Zikkyy, and I'll take it from there.

see it hia:

Zikkyy: Ihedinobi na wa for o! you don turn Jesus to tithe collector because you want to justify your tithing scheme

Zikkyy: of course i saw Goshen's post, i still don't see how Jesus ended up a tithe collector That is very much the gospel of Ihedinobi.

Just in case you pretend not to know what law am talking about, i meant the mosaic law

Ihedinobi: I'm a Christian. In the law, my natural behavior is described. I'm still growing and learning who and what I am and finding that I have certain very clear and some not-so-obvious tendencies and other very unquestionable and some not-so-clear repulsions. To understand myself, I find that I need something to explain why I exhitbit certain behaviors and naturally shun others. I hear that the Law contains an explanation.

The law (mosaic) does not contain explanations, it is a list of do'and don'ts with rewards and blessings for obedience and disobedience. If you explanation refer to Christ and the apostle's teachings joor ....and for the abnormal behavior, what you need is a psychiatrist

Ihedinobi: But, according to Zikkyy, if I go to the Law, I am no longer a Christian for doing so. Hmmm, I think there's a disconnect somewhere in your reasoning regarding this matter, Zikkyy.

The law already written in your heart, use it! abi you don delete your own? i don't see why you should be running to the library to read about how you behave. If you have to open a book to understand why you slapped a police officer yesterday, my brother that book will not solve your problem. you will need counselling

Ihedinobi: But, according to Zikkyy, if I go to the Law, I am no longer a Christian for doing so. Hmmm, I think there's a disconnect somewhere in your reasoning regarding this matter, Zikkyy.

The reason i added 'should' in your post, but you said i was wrong, your post stated that the law was "a description of how Christians behave by nature without compulsion". If as a Christian you are already behaving like that by 'nature', why you dey open book again? unless you are not yet a Christian, abi?

Ihedinobi: Whichever was the one you were responding to, Zikkyy.

you are no longer interested in zikkyy responding to the question abi?

Ihedinobi: He failed to make a correct argument for how it should work,

Like i said before, this is not what am after.

Ihedinobi: But I agree with it and hold it as a tenet of the New Covenant.

This is what am talking about

Ihedinobi: I think what you want to fight with is whether tithing is a principle of the New Covenant or not. Isn't it, Zikkyy?

it took you this long to figure out