₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: Your belief is wrong. I said exactly what I meant to say.

okay then. it therefore mean that any Christian that goes to the law to justify his/her actions (e.g. to justify his tithe) is not a Christian. Thank you, i agree

Ihedinobi: Is that so? Did you understand my question, Zikkyy?

which question? there are two questions already in the post above you know you have to be specific cos 95% (estimate) of ya post are questions. so which question

Ihedinobi: Goshen said that nobody is practising tithing today like it should be. This, according to him, is because under the Old Covenant, the Levites collected the tenth from the rest of Israel and gave a tenth of their collection to the High Priest, that is, Aaron. Thus, said he, the church workers (whom he says sit in place of the Levites) are supposed to collect the tithes from the brethren and give the tenth to the pastor whom, according to him, is the equivalent of Aaron.

I returned that that is not true. I said that the Levites and priests of the Old Covenant corresponded to the ministers of the Word to the brethren in the New Covenant and Aaron corresponded to our Lord Jesus. Thus, following his logic, the tenth rightly is collected by those who minister spiritually and a tenth of that is remitted to our Lord.

Now, what did you go and do? You promptly accused me of making Jesus a tithe collector whereas it was Goshen's logic that made Him so.

I understood the logic from the very beginning, but Goshen did not consider Christ as a tithe collector even if his logic shows something else. that is not what am questioning...

Ihedinobi: As far as I am concerned, our Lord is truly entitled to the tenth of the tenth that the ministers receive. However, I was not pushing that notion at all. I was correcting Goshen's representations.

....the tone of response to Goshen's post suggest you see Christ as a true beneficiary/collector of tithe. this is my concern. and your post above validates my interpretation of your response to Goshen. So am asking how Christ ended up a tithe collector? Did Christ instruct the pastors pay tithe to him?

MostHigh: [/b]

In response to the bolded

On the Contrary ezk 44 details the workings and ordinances of the millennial priesthood and its clear that there will still be elements of the levitical order

....with pastor oritsejafor officiating abi? or is it Oyedepo so you are saying the Hebrew writer does not know what he was talking about when he said there been a change in priesthood?

Ihedinobi: Third. As I have said before elsewhere, the Law describes Christ and thus the Christian. It was more than just a command that human beings behave in a particular way, it was a deacription of how Christians behave by nature without compulsion.

@bolded, i believe you are saying how Christians should behave by nature without compulsion. unfortunately, most so called Christians don't have this nature shown in the law, they still rely on the law to make them behave.

ATMC: ...i have this to say, if tithe is eternal principle then its mode of collection shouldn't change...

from what i read around here, the recipient is not part of what constitute or make tithe an eternal principle cos that one have been changing, same thing for the content of the tithe as the Israelite did not pay tithe from war spoils, same for the percentage as God's definition of tithe in Leviticus 27 is not a strict 10%. so what exactly is eternal? maybe it is the name 'tithe' that's eternal. Oga Ihedinobi, please clarify

m.k.o2005:
What if I do not give? You rob God, and you will suffer (Hag 1:1-11; Mal 3:8-12; II Cor 9:6; Gal 6:7).

if you do not give when you should and when you have something to give, then you are no Christian. You are still going to suffer, and even if you give when you are not a Christian, you are still going to suffer.

m.k.o2005:
See the below :
But the New Testament does not require a tithe? But the tithe was not abolished, as was the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not pre-Moses, was for Israel only, and was clearly abolished according to Paul. Tithing was pre-Moses and not rejected by Paul, thus remaining as a guide !

Let me help you sir. It's not the new testament that does not require tithe; it just that God did not command Christians to give a tithe or 10% of their income/increase to the church account/pastor. Paul did not reject tithe because nobody paid tithe to him. The gentiles were not known to give 10%/tithe of their income.

That is not to say you cannot give 10% of ya income to your pastor directly or indirectly by direct deposit to the church account. Nothing spoil if it came from a sincere heart. That's between you and God. What people are saying is that God did not command the giving of 10% by Christians.

Ihedinobi: Goshen's Concern #1: Tithes were not specifically mentioned.

Would they need to be if our Lord and His disciples took for granted that it was an eternal principle?

Goshen's Concern #2: Whatever the ministers were to receive as wages must be without compulsion.

I think Goshen's primary concern was that 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 does not support the payment of/demand for tithes to/by pastors.

Ihedinobi: Goshen's Concern #1: Tithes were not specifically mentioned.

Would they need to be if our Lord and His disciples took for granted that it was an eternal principle?

I don't think you should go this route. unless you are Jesus or Paul, and unless Jesus came to you in the dream and told you that they (Jesus & his disciples) actually took for granted tithe payment to pastor/church was an eternal principle, nobody can truly answer this question.

To a large extent, there is no clear definition for tithe. (if i ask you to define tithe now, you will begin to speak in tongues ), people define their tithe and pay/give. We don't know who defined Abraham's tithe (Abraham even made some modifications to his tithe by rejecting the remaining 90%), Jacob defined his tithe, God (through Moses) defined his tithe for the Jews, Pastors define tithe for their members, individuals define what constitute their tithe. In all this, what is the principle and what exactly is eternal? is 10% an eternal principle?

ATMC said something interesting in her response to your post;

ATMC: ...i have this to say, if tithe is eternal principle then its mode of collection shouldn't change...

...and i will add that what constitute a tithe will also not change.

Maybe the external principle is the spirit/intent behind the giving of tenth or tithe. Why did Abraham give a tenth of the spoils? why did Jacob promise to give a tenth of his blessings back to God? Why did God instruct that the Israelite give a tenth of their agric produce to the Levites.

Mr. Ihedinobi, you will have to educate us on this eternal principle thing so we understand what you are talking about. thanks

Ihedinobi: Well, Goshen said that pastors in the New Covenant correspond to Aaron in the Old. Is that true?

I still don't see how this make Jesus a tithe collector. why don't you just admit it was in error and let forget about it

debosky: Besides, I consider you as my close(r) brother and based on our previous discussions, I believe you would appreciate the need to elevate the discussion above a 'show and tell' type conversation.

i believe you meant a 'question and answer' type conversation

Ihedinobi: I advise that you also take time to read my particular response to this post of Goshen's.

That would make an interesting read. i dey wait

debosky: Finally, individually you may be convicted by the Spirit to set aside a percentage of your income monthly - 2,3,5,10 or even 20%. That is completely between you and God - however, do not seek to enforce your personal conviction/instruction on others.

Good talk

Goshen360: @ Ihedinobi,
Now, you quoted 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 with emphasis on verses 13-14 and perhaps presented it as though it speaks of tithe in that context. The problem with many of us is, when we read scriptures, we don't question some things. When I say, question the scriptures, I don't mean it in the negative way. I mean it in the positive so that such questioning can trigger more study or findings. Now, lemme me do justice....please note, tithe as a word did not appear in that text and since it does not, it cannot be assumed to mean tithe. Whenever an old testament scriptures is referenced in the new, a good bible student will always find where it was written in the old and apply it into the context of where the new testament made such quotation(s).

New International Version (©2011)

Don't you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?

In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14

In verse 13, is a reference to group #1, THOSE WHO SERVE IN THE TEMPLE...and how do they get their food? The context answers, ...from the temple. Where is this in scriptures from the Old Testament?

New International Version (©2011)
The Levitical priests--indeed, the whole tribe of Levi--are to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel. They shall live on the food offerings presented to the LORD, for that is their inheritance. Deuteronomy 18:1

...please note that those who serve in the TEMPLE are different from those who serve at the ALTAR but the same tribe of Levi or Levitical priesthood. Hence, the two-in-one reference to TEMPLE and ALTAR. In the same verse 13, is a reference to the #1(b) groups - Those who serve at the altar and how do they get their food? Again, the context answers for itself, ...from what is shared from what is offered on the altar . Where is this in scriptures? Leviticus 7:1-8 is the answer - Please, everybody should read it. I can't do much quoting now but verses 5-7 says,

The priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering presented to the LORD. It is a guilt offering. Any male in a priest's family may eat it, but it must be eaten in the sanctuary area; it is most holy. The same law applies to both the sin offering and the guilt offering: They belong to the priest who makes atonement with them.

Therefore, we have group one - those who serve in the temple AND those who serve at the altar

In verse 14, the Apostle made reference to another group, group #2 - those who preach the gospel. And how are these group of people supposed to make their living? The Apostle said, it was the Lord (Jesus) Christ that COMMANDED it that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. Now, the point is context and reference.

Where did the Lord gave such commandment and was it that the Lord said those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel BY COLLECTING TITHE? We have to go back to where the Lord gave such COMMANDMENT AND IF WE CAN'T FIND THAT THE LORD GAVE SUCH COMMANDMENT TO BE TITHE, THOSE WHO FORCE TITHE INTO THIS TEXT ARE IN DANGER OF ADDING TO GOD'S WORD AND ARE IN DANGER OF GOD'S JUDGMENT! Where did the Lord gave such commandment?

1After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. 5“When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house. Luke 10, NIV

From here, we see that those who preach the gospel and should receive their living from the gospel is by the FREEWILL GIVING of those to whom the gospel is preached to and the Lord said this is because the worker or labourer deserves his wages. There is nowhere in scriptures where Christ commanded tithe to be received by those who preach the gospel. We have seen how those who minister at the altar and the temple get their living. These are two different groups: those who serve in the temple \ those who serve at the altar AND those who preach the gospel.

Those who preach the GOSPEL were NEVER told told to get their living from the TEMPLE; it was instructed or commanded to those who minister at the TEMPLE. The same way, those who minister at the TEMPLE cannot go get their living from those who serve at the ALTAR. If there such a place in scripture in reference to verse 14 of I Corinthians 9 that the Lord COMMANDED that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from TITHE, please point out the scripture or be guilt of adding to God's word.

. . ."Do not go beyond what is written." 1 Corinthians 4:6

well done pastor Goshen360. this is the truth. unfortunately, my 'tithing' bros and sis will not read it because they are afraid of the truth....and when they do read it is not to understand because their heart is already hardened by their insatiable desire to hammer

Ihedinobi: I'm sure you saw Goshen's post which I was responding to.

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.

Ihedinobi: Those who serve the Body spiritually are the Levites and priests. So, if the tenth is going anywhere first, it is to those people you call church workers and pastors and they in turn ought to reserve a tenth for the High Priest Jesus.

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

Bidam: get my point Jesus came as a man..why did the first Adam failed?

Wetin concern Adam for this matter

Bidam: You are forgetting the fact that Jesus is actually the law giver even before He came to earth as a man.so why shuldn't he be an example?

I don't understand you. You just told me it was the law that rescued Jesus from Satan na. now you saying he is the law giver. Anyways since you agree he is law giver, so he is only responding to his own principles and not some written law I.e. it was a response to something within. That's how true Christians respond as well.

Bidam: Jesus recognized the resident authority of the Hebrew scriptures when he quoted them to defeat the Tempter

So if not for the mosaic law, Jesus would have fallen to temptation? Is that what you are saying? the authority of the law is even more powerful than Christ abi?

Bidam: you na..that was why i qouted luke 4:4 for you based on this below

My question is was Jesus not studying the law right from an early age?

i don't see how my post says you should not read the bible or how how my post says that Jesus did not study. Una no sabi read okay, let me put it this way; we know Jesus did not kill anybody while he was around abi? why? do you think it was because Jesus was just obeying the mosaic law

or let me ask another way; if there was no mosaic law that says thou shall not kill, do you think Jesus would have gone on a killing spree? i hope you now understand what i meant by Jesus not needing the law.

Ihedinobi: Did you not say the following?

What is not the same thing?

you see yourself you only read the part that interest you. why not complete the statement and see if it did suggest the existence of two buildings see it again below:

Zikkyy: keyword here is "understands". so it's not the same thing and cannot really help in building the actual structure.

i don't see how this suggest the model should be considered a building. not the same thing implies i can do away with the model and not feel like i lost anything.

Ihedinobi: Are you saying that Moses gave an imperfect description of Christ?

if it did the Jews would have been Christians, abi? what do you think? what went wrong? why did they decide to stick to the shadow when the substance was available? maybe there was an essential ingredient missing

Romans 9:30-31 (NIV)
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.

Ihedinobi: You see why I said that you people are not paying attention. Have I not been insisting that the model is not even a house in itself so that it should be said that there are two houses: the model and the actual building?

abeg commot for road joor who says the model is a house? abeg read my post very well o!

Ihedinobi: I hold that Moses was only a picture of Christ. He is not a Law the same way that Christ is. The Law is Christ. However, Moses came to describe Christ to us and is useful to understanding Christ.

Lets assume that the picture was describing Jesus physical attribute and Moses described every feature except the leg. Base on this description can we say we know Christ very well? Now Christ came and gave us a complete picture of himself with a description of the legs as well. so which of the description do you hold on to? Moses description or Christ description?

Ihedinobi: The only people who hate to be questioned are those who are afraid to be wrong and it is only pride that inspires such fear.

i don't quite agree. it's based on expectations. if there is some form of understanding between the parties to the discussion that it's going to be a question and answer thing, i don't think there would be an issue.

Ihedinobi: I quite willing to let anyone think that I am unschooled in the Word when I disagree with them, but as far as I can, I will provoke such people to thought.

you better be careful with this ya questioning, so you don't provoke somebody to the point where the man will pull a pistol on ya

Ihedinobi: With the model of a building, one understands what to expect of the actual building itself.

keyword here is "understands". so it's not the same thing and cannot really help in building the actual structure. Now that i have the actual structure, i don't need it for myself anymore. the best i can do with the model is to sell it to you ... okay, i will 'dash' you (you know am my brothers keeper ) since you are also considering your own building after seeing my palace but considering the amount of time you have spent studying the model, am not sure you will ever erect that structure o!

Ihedinobi: Fine. What do you use the Law for?

this man you be journalist? why the question and answer? and you will be the one to answer a question with another question if i adopt your approach to responding to questions here, my response would be "what do you think i use it for"

but since am not Ihedinobi, i will tell you i don't use the for anything i don't need it.

ayoku777: Oga MostHigh

Sin is not in the world because the Law hasn't been fulfilled, sin is in the world coz people are not being led of the Spirit of God that the finished work of Christ gives to all who accept Christ. The solution to carnality in the life of a believer isn't moral laws but the spirit-led life.

@bolded, The mosaic law lovers will never understand.

MostHigh: Hey man are you circumsciced in your foreskin?

An if your answer is yes then why?

This man na wa for you so you really expect me to answer this question?

Bidam: and what point is rom 1 making?

Why not read the chapter? abi you dey wait for a pastor to do the interpretation? you can use google na. you know you are very skilled when it comes to scanning the internet for data

Bidam: You are going far away my bro..what was Jesus quoting to the devil in luke 4:4 is it OT or NT? are you advocating that any one that has the Holy Spirit should no longer read the bible?

who is saying you should not read the bible?

Bidam: The scripture i quoted is saying COMMANDMENTS. Explain that please.

Please answer debosky's question, now that you are of the opinion that the commandments are plenty tells us God's commandment(s) that we are required to keep

Bidam: Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 1cor7:19 KJV.

all this time, i was thinking circumcision was on Bidam's list of part of God's 'commandment(s)'