Giving 10% - Stated clearly in the Bible. (CHC just obeying)
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I think you are all expending too much time and energy on the position of the 10% tithing. Not enough on the Why and How.
Its getting a bit convoluted now.
We digressed.Anyway, in the OT there were more than one tithe, and it consisted mainly of livestock or one's agricultural produce. It was mainly for the poor and the support of the Levititcal priesthood who tended to Temple matters. The point to note though is that tithing was NOT taught in the NT as something that Christians must do. Giving yes, tithing no.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why? Problem? With what? The Jews? Their rejection of Christ? But do all Jews reject Christ? The first believers were largely Jewish. Today there are many Jewish who believe in Jesus too. Jesus was a Jew. No wonder your knowledge of the Bible is so shallow, you completely ignored the Jewish roots of the Christian faith.No problem at all... your beliefs, not mine.
Granted, the 1st believers were Jews(ethnic) but called themselves Christians(belief).
How many Jews who believe in Jesus against those many who do not relatively? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
We digressed.Anyway, in the OT there were more than one tithe, and it consisted mainly of livestock or one's agricultural produce. It was mainly for the poor and the support of the Levititcal priesthood who tended to Temple matters. The point to note though is that tithing was NOT taught in the NT as something that Christians must do. Giving yes, tithing no.
BIC
Like I said, you seem like you are choosing what to obey and what not to obey in th OT lei... Some you obey, some you don't. NT also.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
No problem at all... your beliefs, not mine.
Granted, the 1st believers were Jews(ethnic) but called themselves Christians(belief).
How many Jews who believe in Jesus against those many who do not relatively?Why ask irrelevant question? You got a lot of red herrings to throw? The issue is regarding what Jews believe about the age of the earth, not whether ALL Jews believe in Jesus, or even how many do. Argue logically and maturely please.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why ask irrelevant question? You got a lot of red herrings to throw? The issue is regarding what Jews believe about the age of the earth, not whether ALL Jews believe in Jesus, or even how many do. Argue logically and maturely please.
*facepalm* Told you what the Jews believe is not my concern.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Like I said, you seem like you are choosing what to obey and what not to obey in th OT lei... Some you obey, some you don't. NT also.
This impression you have reflects your lack of knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics. But for those who train themselves in rightly dividing the Word of God, they will know that not every command in the Bible is applicable to Christians today. The Bible must be read with common sense. Do you believe every Christian should read Genesis 6 and start building a three storeyed Ark today? Why not? Should every Christian seek to be circumcised today? Again why not?
Christian author Roy Zuck presents several guidelines for determining which biblical examples, commands, and practices apply today: �
1. Some situations, commands, or principles are repeatable, continuous, or not revoked, and/or pertain to moral and theological subjects, and/or are repeated elsewhere in Scripture, and therefore are permanent and transferable to us.
2. Some situations, commands, or principles pertain to an individual's specific nonrepeatable circumstances, and/or nonmoral or nontheological subjects, and/or have been revoked, and are therefore not transferable to today. �
3. Some situations or commands pertain to cultural settings that are only partially similar to ours and in which only the principles are transferable. �
4. Some situations or commands pertain to cultural settings with no similarities but in which the principles are transferable.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
*facepalm* Told you what the Jews believe is not my concern.
You can facepalm all you want, it doesn't invalidate any point I make.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why ask irrelevant question? You got a lot of red herrings to throw? The issue is regarding what Jews believe about the age of the earth, not whether ALL Jews believe in Jesus, or even how many do. Argue logically and maturely please.
*facepalm* Told you what the Jews believe what Jesus believed is not my concern.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
*facepalm* Told you what the Jews believe what Jesus believed is not my concern.
What you are concerned with is not my concern. Until now you have FAILED to show
1. That Jesus did not hold to a 6 day creation (which would certainly means a young earth view, a view that I have already made a case for)
2. That including the chronology between Abraham to Jesus would have invalidated the point made earlier, that Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC, and that when God instituted marriage it was on Day 6, pretty much "from the beginning of creation".
3. That I was wrong that it was about 2000 years between Abraham to Jesus.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
What you are concerned with is not my concern. Until now you have FAILED to show
1. That Jesus did not hold to a 6 day creation (which would certainly means a young earth view, a view that I have already made a case for)
2. That including the chronology between Abraham to Jesus would have invalidated the point made earlier, that Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC, and that when God instituted marriage it was on Day 6, pretty much "from the beginning of creation".
3. That I was wrong that it was about 2000 years between Abraham to Jesus.
1. http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
2. It was omitted.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
1. http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
2. It was omitted.
1. The link you gave is one big excuse not to take the Bible in its plain straightforward manner. Worse still it committed the fallacy to motive by saying that YEC have agenda to interpret the text to fit young earth view. It says "Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule." What happened to your fallacy detective attennae? Not working well? LOL! Walter Kaiser is an old earth creationist, so what makes you think he is not biased and has an agenda? What about James Barr then? Here's an Oxford professor of Hebrew who is NOT a young earth creationist, yet he wrote
" … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that
a. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
b. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
c. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."
2. You still failed to show this. I have provided earlier links that backed this point. Your failure not mine.
3. http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/index.html
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Like I said, you seem like you are choosing what to obey and what not to obey in th OT lei... Some you obey, some you don't. NT also.
That is what I posted to tell that is self righteousness.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The link you gave is one big excuse not to take the Bible in its plain straightforward manner. Worse still it committed the fallacy to motive by saying that YEC have agenda to interpret the text to fit young earth view. It says "Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule." What happened to your fallacy detective attennae? Not working well? LOL! Walter Kaiser is an old earth creationist, so what makes you think he is not biased and has an agenda? What about James Barr then? Here's an Oxford professor of Hebrew who is NOT a young earth creationist, yet he wrote
" … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that
a. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
b. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
c. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."
2. You still failed to show this. I have provided earlier links that backed this point. Your failure not mine.
3. http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/index.html
1. http://contendforthefaith2.com/days.html
2. No mention of Abraham to Jesus chronology in your 1st link and conclude the table.
3. Your link failed.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
1. http://contendforthefaith2.com/days.html
2. No mention of Abraham to Jesus chronology in your 1st link and conclude the table.
3. Your link failed.
1. http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html
An additional comment on Gleason Archer. Archer is a defender of Biblical inerrancy, but he allowed himself to be intimidated by ‘science’ so didn’t believe what he admitted was the most obvious interpretation of Genesis 1—24-hour days:
‘From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.’
The rest of this is a rationalization to explain away the clear Biblical teaching of six 24-hour days, to fit in with uniformitarian ‘science’.
2. There was no need to mention that. Anyone who has the initiative can easily find out that piece of information. The point was to establish the point that if evolution is true, then Jesus would be lying to say that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation since according to evolution man is really at the end.
3. My link did not fail.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html
An additional comment on Gleason Archer. Archer is a defender of Biblical inerrancy, but he allowed himself to be intimidated by ‘science’ so didn’t believe what he admitted was the most obvious interpretation of Genesis 1—24-hour days:
The rest of this is a rationalization to explain away the clear Biblical teaching of six 24-hour days, to fit in with uniformitarian ‘science’.
2. There was no need to mention that. Anyone who has the initiative can easily find out that piece of information. The point was to establish the point that if evolution is true, then Jesus would be lying to say that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation since according to evolution man is really at the end.
3. My link did not fail.
1. Those points in your link had been totally debunked. Elaborate how 'science' intimidate.
2. 1st link was omission of critical information to conclude a misleading chart. Second link was some Jewish blabber without reference to the scriptures...
3. *facepalm* What has that link got to do with anything?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
1. Those points in your link had been totally debunked. Elaborate how 'science' intimidate.
2. 1st link was omission of critical information to conclude a misleading chart. Second link was some Jewish blabber without reference to the scriptures...
3. *facepalm* What has that link got to do with anything?
1. As are those points in YOUR link.
2. You still FAILED to show why the "missing information" was critical and how it invalidate the point.
3. What has your Maurice Bucaille got to do with anything?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. As are those points in YOUR link.
2. You still FAILED to show why the "missing information" was critical and how it invalidate the point.
3. What has your Maurice Bucaille got to do with anything?
1. You are just saying that. Any supporting documents?
2. The chart in the link showed 4000yrs from creation to Jesus with the chronology from Adam to abraham and the deliberate omission of chronology Abraham to Jesus. The information is still missing.
3. You 1st.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
This impression you have reflects your lack of knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics. But for those who train themselves in rightly dividing the Word of God, they will know that not every command in the Bible is applicable to Christians today. The Bible must be read with common sense. Do you believe every Christian should read Genesis 6 and start building a three storeyed Ark today? Why not? Should every Christian seek to be circumcised today? Again why not?
Christian author Roy Zuck presents several guidelines for determining which biblical examples, commands, and practices apply today:
1. Some situations, commands, or principles are repeatable, continuous, or not revoked, and/or pertain to moral and theological subjects, and/or are repeated elsewhere in Scripture, and therefore are permanent and transferable to us.
2. Some situations, commands, or principles pertain to an individual's specific nonrepeatable circumstances, and/or nonmoral or nontheological subjects, and/or have been revoked, and are therefore not transferable to today.
3. Some situations or commands pertain to cultural settings that are only partially similar to ours and in which only the principles are transferable.
4. Some situations or commands pertain to cultural settings with no similarities but in which the principles are transferable.
BIC
In book of matthew, Jesus told disciples to cut off their limbs and gouge out their eyes if they sin. Mind you, it is the words of Jesus himself, of the Christian God himself..
If you read in context that passage, nowhere in the passage does it hint that what he said was metaphorical. If you read in context, in fact, the whole passage, he was talking about how to deal with life's situations practically.
And a few verses before the cutting limbs verse, christians take those verses literally. THen when it comes to the cutting limbs verse, they suddenly say it is metaphorical?
Too hard to obey?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
1. You are just saying that. Any supporting documents?
2. The chart in the link showed 4000yrs from creation to Jesus with the chronology from Adam to abraham and the deliberate omission of chronology Abraham to Jesus. The information is still missing.
3. You 1st.
1. You are also just saying that. Duh.
2. The information is NOT missing. Any person with elementary education can do the maths. If creation to Jesus is 4000 years, creation to Abraham is 2000 years, then how long from Abraham to Jesus? Hint: 2+2=4. Can't believe I have to teach you this. *face/palm*
Anyway, for what it's worth, say ahhhhhhhhh...... http://www.hebroots.com/lul7_8.html
3. No no no, you first.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
In book of matthew, Jesus told disciples to cut off their limbs and gouge out their eyes if they sin. Mind you, it is the words of Jesus himself, of the Christian God himself..
If you read in context that passage, nowhere in the passage does it hint that what he said was metaphorical. If you read in context, in fact, the whole passage, he was talking about how to deal with life's situations practically.
And a few verses before the cutting limbs verse, christians take those verses literally. THen when it comes to the cutting limbs verse, they suddenly say it is metaphorical?
Too hard to obey?
One new word for you to learn: HYPERBOLE.
Like I said, and this is proven again by your post, you are not well grounded at all in the faith. You need to read up more. See http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Rabbi%20Jesus.htm
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. You are also just saying that. Duh.
2. The information is NOT missing. Any person with elementary education can do the maths. If creation to Jesus is 4000 years, creation to Abraham is 2000 years, then how long from Abraham to Jesus? Hint: 2+2=4. Can't believe I have to teach you this. *face/palm*
Anyway, for what it's worth, say ahhhhhhhhh...... http://www.hebroots.com/lul7_8.html
3. No no no, you first.
1. You must be blind to overlook the colored link text.
2. Yup. You pointed the missing information. There was no chronology of Abraham to Jesu to complete the equation. 2+?=? and you asumed without basis the answer is 4. Some education you have...
3. Yes. I asked 1st.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
One new word for you to learn: HYPERBOLE.
Like I said, and this is proven again by your post, you are not well grounded at all in the faith. You need to read up more. See http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Rabbi%20Jesus.htm
BIC
Let me rephrase for you ok? Stop playing with words.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:show
BIC
In book of matthew, Jesus told disciples to cut off their limbs and gouge out their eyes if they sin. Mind you, it is the words of Jesus himself, of the Christian God himself..
If you read in context that passage, nowhere in the passage does it hint that what he said was a hyperbole. If you read in context, in fact, the whole passage, he was talking about how to deal with life's situations practically.
And a few verses before the cutting limbs verse, christians take those verses literally. THen when it comes to the cutting limbs verse, they suddenly say it is a hyberbole?
Too hard to obey?
- Are you really reading in context??
-
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
1. You must be blind to overlook the colored link text.
2. Yup. You pointed the missing information. There was no chronology of Abraham to Jesu to complete the equation. 2+?=? and you asumed without basis the answer is 4. Some education you have...
3. Yes. I asked 1st.
1. As blind as you overlooking the links I provided? Duh.
2. The only one doing the assuming is you, since you lack the education to complete the equation that 2+?=4. The basis for the 4000 years is in the adding of the chronologies in the Bible from Adam to Christ. Let's see, you lack education and initiative, and common sense as well. LOL! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible
3. You posted the link first, so you need to explain what the link is for and relevance. After you, milady.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. As blind as you overlooking the links I provided? Duh.
2. The only one doing the assuming is you, since you lack the education to complete the equation that 2+?=4. The basis for the 4000 years is in the adding of the chronologies in the Bible from Adam to Christ. Let's see, you lack education and initiative, and common sense as well. LOL! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible
3. You posted the link first, so you need to explain what the link is for and relevance. After you, milady.
1. Its debunked by my links....
2. The link you provided does not contain adam to Jesus = 4000years. Have the decency to read your own link before posting, thank you.
3. Then read it to understand. Ask what you don't understand. I may answer. Which concludes you didn't read and just throw a random link....
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Let me rephrase for you ok? Stop playing with words.
-
BIC
In book of matthew, Jesus told disciples to cut off their limbs and gouge out their eyes if they sin. Mind you, it is the words of Jesus himself, of the Christian God himself..
If you read in context that passage, nowhere in the passage does it hint that what he said was a hyperbole. If you read in context, in fact, the whole passage, he was talking about how to deal with life's situations practically.
And a few verses before the cutting limbs verse, christians take those verses literally. THen when it comes to the cutting limbs verse, they suddenly say it is a hyberbole?
Too hard to obey?
- Are you really reading in context??
Begging the question, on what basis do you say that Jesus was not teaching in hyperbole?
As for me, my evidence is that none of Jesus' hearers started amputating themselves and gorging out their eyes. His hearers did not take it literally, so why you pushing it? The Jews know what is hyperbolic teaching, you don't. It is your ignorance at work here, not my problem. I understand the Scriptures, you don't.
Bottom line: Yours is the kind of wooden literalism that is DANGEROUS. Yet this is precisely the strawman argument you are using.
-