Giving 10% - Stated clearly in the Bible. (CHC just obeying)
-
I am not a christian but I am not against CHC preaching to give 10%. As christians, CHC people have a right to preach from their bibles. And the bible does state that
people who believe in the CHristian God must give 10% of their "first fruits".
Some christians say the 10% commandment in the old testament is no longer applicable. But some say this 10% commandment is still applicable.
I think the 10% commandment is still applicable to christians, even though it is in the old testament because christians
also obey the ten commandments which is in the old testament.
What you think? If 10% commandment is in the bible, should christians obey it? -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
I am not a christian but I am not against CHC preaching to give 10%. As christians, CHC people have a right to preach from their bibles. And the bible does state that
people who believe in the CHristian God must give 10% of their "first fruits".
Some christians say the 10% commandment in the old testament is no longer applicable. But some say this 10% commandment is still applicable.
I think the 10% commandment is still applicable to christians, even though it is in the old testament because christians
also obey the ten commandments which is in the old testament.
What you think? If 10% commandment is in the bible, should christians obey it?The 10 commandments are RESTATED and summed up in the NT as "Love God, Love Neighbour". But is the tithe restated and practiced in the NT by believers? If so, where?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The 10 commandments are RESTATED and summed up in the NT as "Love God, Love Neighbour". But is the tithe restated and practiced in the NT by believers? If so, where?
BIC,
So you are saying that the 10% commandment is not applicable. So to prevent confusion, why dont you just remove it? To prevent people from using it.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
So you are saying that the 10% commandment is not applicable. So to prevent confusion, why dont you just remove it? To prevent people from using it.
Remove it from the Bible?
Only if you think Christianity is man made and the Bible was made by man. There are specific (and strongly worded) warnings not to add or remove anything from the Bible. Would you do it, if you believe the Bible (the whole thing) are the Word of God?
The Bible is a complete whole. People just need to be taught the difference between OT and NT.
Unfortunately even some ministers do not know how to "correctly divide the word". The Bible is like one big lawyer's contract of inheritance. There are terms and conditions and legal rights. You have to know how those can be effected. Like any legal doument, it is not easy to interpret - there are clauses upon clauses and secondary claims.
A good lawyer will become a good Bible scholar, although not necessarily a good teacher and imparter of the Word.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
Remove it from the Bible?
Only if you think Christianity is man made and the Bible was made by man. There are specific (and strongly worded) warnings not to add or remove anything from the Bible. Would you do it, if you believe the Bible (the whole thing) are the Word of God?
The Bible is a complete whole. People just need to be taught the difference between OT and NT.
Joe 328,
Er...but protestant christians also have many books and sentences removed from the current bible. You know that right?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
So you are saying that the 10% commandment is not applicable. So to prevent confusion, why dont you just remove it? To prevent people from using it.
Changing the subject already, Tcmc? Why don't you give Scriptural support that Christians are to tithe 10% of their income?
Not applicable just remove? Cut out what you don't like to see? That's mutilating the Scriptures, worse than abuse! The correct way is to teach people to interpret the Bible correctly, not to cut out things they don't like.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Changing the subject already, Tcmc? Why don't you give Scriptural support that Christians are to tithe 10% of their income?
Not applicable just remove? Cut out what you don't like to see? That's mutilating the Scriptures, worse than abuse! The correct way is to teach people to interpret the Bible correctly, not to cut out things they don't like.
Er...but protestant christians also have many books and sentences removed from the bible .You know that right?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Joe 328,
Er...but protestant christians also have many books and sentences removed from the current bible. You know that right?
Got meh? Where? But that would mean you KNOW what books should rightfully be there to begin with. Did you know that?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Got meh? Where? But that would mean you KNOW what books should rightfully be there to begin with. Did you know that?
BIC
No. I am just following your logic of "thou should not remove any books from the bible".
So why did protestants remove the books a few hundred years ago?
And similarly like what you asked, how do they know what is supposed to be in and what is not supposed to be in? How can they just remove chunks of chapters like that?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Got meh? Where? But that would mean you KNOW what books should rightfully be there to begin with. Did you know that?
Even modern versions (NIV, NLT) protestans are constantly removing verses, words and sentences.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Joe 328,
Er...but protestant christians also have many books and sentences removed from the current bible. You know that right?
I am well aware of Bible canon and Textual Criticism.
I have asked this question and prayed to God about this before and I got my answer - No pastor taught me this, although he contributed greatly to the foundations.
I know the basics of how the Bible can maintain its integrity. Which books are canon, which aren't. Why the "Gospel of Thomas", "Gospel of Mary", etc is not part of the canon.
Maybe it's my background in law enforcement and my exposure to law. It has to do with witnesses. A crime happened at a scene in which the judge was not there to see it, how can one possibly make a claim that what was presented in court is legit and true? Evidences and supporting witnesses, and intent.... There are also other things which are crucial but I don't have the terms and name for it.
Paul is a key central figure and holds many things together, which is also why the Pauline epistles comprises of 2/3 of the NT, and why they are not written by the original 11 (12 minus Judas).
It is also the reason why the Bible can interpret itself without a need for any external commentary written by other men. A key verse would be "in the mouth of 2 to 3 witnesses, every word shall be established." This verse also provides "commentary" on the mystery of the Trinity. Jesus spoke about the 3 witnesses often - the water, the blood, the word. He also speaks of the witness the Holy Spirit bears and that he does not bear witness of Himself (which is to say His Word is not His own - "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." John 5:31) Like in court, you cannot just say anything and then use yourself to back it up. It doesn't stand.
There is also gematria (number value of the hebrew words), word pictures and bible code which all bear witness to each other, all written by "secretaries to God" - men who lived and died with many years in between them - there is no mathematical possiblity of comparing notes because of this. Because of the mathematical probability or improbability, the Bible is inspired, and not a product of man, because no man is smart enough to orchestrate such complex "coincidences". How can they? They lived so many centuries apart in different places with different circumstances, yet the the hidden codes, the language, the prophecies, the pieces all fall together like a jigsaw.
I have seen great architecture, music and art... Swiss watchs with great complications. But the Bible is truly something else. It's a beauty if you see it.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
I am well aware of Bible canon and Textual Criticism.
I have asked this question and prayed to God about this before and I got my answer - No pastor taught me this, although he contributed greatly to the foundations.
I know the basics of how the Bible can maintain its integrity. Which books are canon, which aren't. Why the "Gospel of Thomas", "Gospel of Mary", etc is not part of the canon.
Maybe it's my background in law enforcement and my exposure to law. It has to do with witnesses. A crime happened at a scene in which the judge was not there to see it, how can one possibly make a claim that what was presented in court is legit and true? Evidences and supporting witnesses, and intent.... There are also other things which are crucial but I don't have the terms and name for it.
Paul is a key central figure and holds many things together, which is also why the Pauline epistles comprises of 2/3 of the NT, and why they are not written by the original 11 (12 minus Judas).
It is also the reason why the Bible can interpret itself without a need for any external commentary written by other men. A key verse would be "in the mouth of 2 to 3 witnesses, every word shall be established." This verse also provides "commentary" on the mystery of the Trinity. Jesus spoke about the 3 witnesses often - the water, the blood, the word. He also speaks of the witness the Holy Spirit bears and that he does not bear witness of Himself (which is to say His Word is not His own - "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." John 5:31) Like in court, you cannot just say anything and then use yourself to back it up. It doesn't stand.
There is also gematria (number value of the hebrew words), word pictures and bible code which all bear witness to each other, all written by "secretaries to God" - men who lived and died with many years in between them - there is no mathematical possiblity of comparing notes because of this. Because of the mathematical probability or improbability, the Bible is inspired, and not a product of man, because no man is smart enough to orchestrate such complex "coincidences". How can they? They lived so many centuries apart in different places with different circumstances, yet the the hidden codes, the language, the prophecies, the pieces all fall together like a jigsaw.
I have seen great architecture, music and art... Swiss watchs with great complications. But the Bible is truly something else. It's a beauty if you see it.
Joe,
Book of Enoch is quoted in Book of Jude. But where is Book of Enoch? Who are you? HOw do you know that the current bible is what your Deity wants you to have? Your yourself quoted the "do not remove any verse" command yet you are also the one justifying removal of verses.
?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Even modern versions (NIV, NLT) protestans are constantly removing verses, words and sentences.
That is not even great. If you really want to pick us Christians apart, you should use Macabees in the Catholic Bible and why Gospel of Thomas is not canon in the Protestant Bible.
NIV, KJV, etc are English translations of the original scrolls. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew in the OT and Greek in the NT (although some scholars claim that Aramaic was the original even before the Greek scrolls were around)
English texts are secondary, even tertiery sources of scripture.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
No. I am just following your logic of "thou should not remove any books from the bible".
So why did protestants remove the books a few hundred years ago?
And similarly like what you asked, how do they know what is supposed to be in and what is not supposed to be in? How can they just remove chunks of chapters like that?
Again I am throwing back the question at you, which are the books that should have been in there which should not have been thrown out? When you accuse others of removing or throwing things away, it presupposes that you know what should have been there to begin with. So tell me, what is it? If you don't know, then just say so, and your allegation will be thrown out as well.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Even modern versions (NIV, NLT) protestans are constantly removing verses, words and sentences.
Really? Evidence please.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Really? Evidence please.
from the mouth of someone who have the cheek to ask for evidence
I am LOL now
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Joe,
Book of Enoch is quoted in Book of Jude. But where is Book of Enoch? Who are you? HOw do you know that the current bible is what your Deity wants you to have? Your yourself quoted the "do not remove any verse" command yet you are also the one justifying removal of verses.
?
As an atheist, you are asking questions from the ground of wanting to prove Christians wrong. I'm not interested trying to prove my belief. I'm not obliged to. If someone is sincere about wanting to know God better and have questions, I might be more apt to explain what I know.
I don't like repeating myself after a very long typed message that tried to explain it. If you still don't understand, sorry. Maybe you want to study it for yourself and be a Bible scholar yourself? There are Bible scholars who ask these type of questions as a full-time undertaking and publish their findings like scientists to.
For Christians who are interested: Go to the preface section of a Bible. It explains origins of manuscripts. It explains the use of italics as an english "addition" to provide ease of reading and grammatical accuracy. You will find 100 more questions for every 1 answered. What in the world is a Vulgate? What is a Septuagint? Masoretic text, NU text. Why is the dead sea scrolls important in the discussion and why is it mentioned? Why some verses are "moved" around? Is it "legal" to do it? blah blah blah blah blah. The nominal Christian will not know these things - this is the territory of scholars... but their faith is still useful to them, because faith is not reason. For without faith it's impossible to please God.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
As an atheist, you are asking questions from the ground of wanting to prove Christians wrong. I'm not interested trying to prove my belief. I'm not obliged to. If someone is sincere about wanting to know God better and have questions, I might be more apt to explain what I know.
I don't like repeating myself after a very long typed message that tried to explain it. If you still don't understand, sorry. Maybe you want to study it for yourself and be a Bible scholar yourself? There are Bible scholars who ask these type of questions as a full-time undertaking and publish their findings like scientists to.
For Christians who are interested: Go to the preface section of a Bible. It explains origins of manuscripts. It explains the use of italics as an english "addition" to provide ease of reading and grammatical accuracy. You will find 100 more questions for every 1 answered. What in the world is a Vulgate? What is a Septuagint? Masoretic text, NU text. Why is the dead sea scrolls important in the discussion and why is it mentioned? Why some verses are "moved" around? Is it "legal" to do it? blah blah blah blah blah. The nominal Christian will not know these things - this is the territory of scholars... but their faith is still useful to them, because faith is not reason. For without faith it's impossible to please God.
Joe,
I have many christian friend and I am ok with christians believing in God or angels.
But then i just find it distasteful that many christians like to push their beliefs as universal fact to everyone.
That said, am i not right for saying that you are against removing of verses, and yet you are also ok with removing of verses, if it suits your beliefs?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Joe,
I have many christian friend and I am ok with christians believing in God or angels.
But then i just find it distasteful that many christians like to push their beliefs as universal fact to everyone.
That said, am i not right for saying that you are against removing of verses, and yet you are also ok with removing of verses, if it suits your beliefs?
I find it distasteful too that atheist push their beliefs as universal fact to everyone.
What I am against or ok with is a moot point. Whose opinion really matters? This Christian? That Christian? Which Christian? Instead of asking me, why don't you go find out, and then come back to tell me to see if you got the right answer?? I got some answers without asking another Christian. Surely, you can do it too?
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
I find it distasteful too that atheist push their beliefs as universal fact to everyone.
What I am against or ok with is a moot point. Whose opinion really matters? This Christian? That Christian? Which Christian? Instead of asking me, why don't you go find out, and then come back to tell me to see if you got the right answer?? I got some answers without asking another Christian. Surely, you can do it too?
Joe,
Facts are proven. Beliefs are another story. Get these two right.
In fact, I have asked Catholics regarding protestants removing books, verses from the canonised bible. To Catholics, that is a grave sin, in accordance to the revelation verse.
But when I ask protestan christians, its either most of them don't even know about the canonised bible, or they justify removing of books from the catholic bible, but are against removing of books from the protestant bibles.
To me as a bystander, that is just confusing.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Joe,
I have many christian friend and I am ok with christians believing in God or angels.
But then i just find it distasteful that many christians like to push their beliefs as universal fact to everyone.
That said, am i not right for saying that you are against removing of verses, and yet you are also ok with removing of verses, if it suits your beliefs?
Do you find it distasteful that evolutionists push their beliefs as universal fact to everyone, as though they have proven that life came from nonlife, and that all living things came from one common ancestor, aka particles to profesors?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Do you find it distasteful that evolutionists push their beliefs as universal fact to everyone, as though they have proven that life came from nonlife, and that all living things came from one common ancestor, aka particles to profesors?
Erm, facts are proven, legends are not?
Like would you be angry if someone pushes his belief in Snow White as fact?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Joe,
Facts are proven. Beliefs are another story. Get these two right.
In fact, I have asked Catholics regarding protestants removing books, verses from the canonised bible. To Catholics, that is a grave sin, in accordance to the revelation verse.
But when I ask protestan christians, its either most of them don't even know about the canonised bible, or they justify removing of books from the catholic bible, but are against removing of books from the protestant bibles.
To me as a bystander, that is just confusing.
"To me as a bystander, that is just confusing."
That's not my problem, that's YOURS. I had to face that problem too. Why don't you go find out?
-
are we farmers? what first fruit? and the Bible didn't specially say must give to this or that church wat! if there is a need and I see a need in someone , I can even give 20% or 30%. But if my church wants fully ducted air con and granite benches and marble flooring whilst there are millions in this world starving....you think i will give my even 1%? God gave us a brain to think lah!
-
From what I know is that the good Christians says that it is not necessary to give at all, and if want to give, give as you wish, not necessary 10%, can be more can be less, up to you.
It is the kia see, kia su Christians that say must give 10% or more, in order to be true, blessed or correct.
Of course then there is the businessman, who says you must give a).10% b). alms c). the first fruits (i.e. first pay, first bonus, increment) and d). love gift and lastly e). your shirt and trousers and throw in your flat.