Tithing

[muffler dragon]

"Fulfill" ''complete"
He fulfilled the requirement of the law.

If you ever feel so inclined, take a peek at this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1141549-abolishing-the-law.html&page=3

post #30 is one that I have written which discusses "abolish" and "fulfill" from a Hebraic perspective.

The book portion is at the bottom.

 

[Andyman_1970]

So let me guess.
If I wont let you change MY mind, then I should go elsewhere?
How about you?
If youre not open to other points of view, then maybe YOU should reconsider posting on here

No not at all, my point was that if you run into someone who has a different point of view than you (which you’ll find a lot on here FYI) I would urge you to address them in a respectful manner as your brother or sister in the faith – rather than your seemingly condescending tone.

I am more than open to other points of view – feel free and do a search on here by my screen name and read my posts from when I got here to now – I have changed my point of view on a few things.

"Fulfill" ''complete"
He fulfilled the requirement of the law.

For the I think 4th time: coming from a Jewish Rabbi (which Jesus was), this has a totally different meaning – I would be more than happy to post my references if you like.

So in your eyes was Jesus not a Jewish Rabbi? Your refusal to accept this understanding of “fulfill” would seem to point that direction.

For salvation you are correct the rules are not different.

Being a Jew though is MUCH more than just salvation – living out Torah has very little (if anything) to do with salvation – for a Jew it was living out the instructions God had given them to live by……….that’s it plain and simple.

But then, Paul knew who he was.
A man saved by the blood of Christ.

I point I totally agree with you on.

 

[muffler dragon]

I just find is somewhat amusing (in a sick, demented sort of way) that the exact same preachers and leaders at church that say the ole' "we are under grace-we dont have to follow any law" are so quick to preach a million times about their tithe they "feel God wants" us to give them-that it's "in the Bible" so we must do it.

My pastor spoke a few weeks ago about being good stewards of God's money--all the while standing in front of $8,000.00 curtains that were, in part, paid for by my money. While the pregnancy resource center down the street is in need of an ultrasound machine to help prevent the murder of innocent life and doesnt have enough money for one.

Our church actually paid to have BASEBALL cards of our Sunday School teachers made up so they could pass them out. Give me a break.

Is this what God wants with our money? Why did God want us to tithe? To spend an exorberant amount of money that wont lead more people to His Kingdom?

What would the typical Pastor say if everyone at church said they werent giving money anymore-that we were going to bring food in for his family to live on and give his family a house to live in free? How would leadership feel then?

Valid points.

 

[YahwehLove]

Exactly, Paul here addressing Gentiles (who have been told by Jews that they have to follow the Torah to be a follower of Jesus) that in Jesus those things don't matter. Previous if you were a Gentile according to the Jewish mindset you were excluded from God's plan (so to speak), but now His purpose is made avaiable to all people - Jew of Greek.

This passage in no way indicates that Messianic Jews (not Gentiles mind you) were to stop being Torah observant.

to YOU it doesnt.
To the Jew accepting Christ, it should.

Wow, that's a seemingly hateful remark.

really?!!?
So every Jew on this planet has repented and started following Christ?
My comment wasnt hateful, it was stating fact.

Something I wish we'd stick to here instaed of making silly comments assuming someone is saying something that they clearly are not.

You seem (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) to assert that Christianity = Gentiles, because that's who Jerusalem council you refer to were dealing with - do we (Jews) make Gentiles follow the Law as a result of their becoming a follower of Jesus - the answer was a resounding no. They were not Jews, so why would they need to do what a Jew does? From the point of view of a Jew (Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul) the Torah (or Law) was not bondage as you put it, but rather God's "love letter" to His people.

Sorry, the whole yoke of bondage idea is not mine.
That idea comes straight from the words of Paul.
Love letter?
Ive heard converted Jews talk about how they viewed the OT as hatred toward their people before they came to Christ and their eyes were opened.

having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
(Eph 2:15)

G2189
ἔχθρα
echthra
ekh'-thrah
Feminine of G2190; hostility; by implication a reason for opposition: - enmity, hatred.

With all due respect you're making a bug "leap" here from the passage in Galatians (no Jew or Greek) to the Law is worthless. So again I ask you, where, in Jesus' words did He say the Law is worthless?

Sorry, no leap at all.
Im just taking it ALL as its written.

 

[YahwehLove]

If you ever feel so inclined, take a peek at this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1141549-abolishing-the-law.html&page=3

post #30 is one that I have written which discusses "abolish" and "fulfill" from a Hebraic perspective.

The book portion is at the bottom.

But Im not interested in YOUR perspective.
Im interested in what the NT teaches.

 

[muffler dragon]

For the I think 4th time: coming from a Jewish Rabbi (which Jesus was), this has a totally different meaning – I would be more than happy to post my references if you like.

Is that all? I thought it was well into the teens by now.

 

[muffler dragon]

But Im not interested in YOUR perspective.
Im interested in what the NT teaches.

+

 

[YahwehLove]

No not at all, my point was that if you run into someone who has a different point of view than you (which you’ll find a lot on here FYI) I would urge you to address them in a respectful manner as your brother or sister in the faith – rather than your seemingly condescending tone.

Now hold on one second.
Ive been treated the same way in this very thread.
Have you corrected the other gentleman?

I am more than open to other points of view – feel free and do a search on here by my screen name and read my posts from when I got here to now – I have changed my point of view on a few things.

Thats fine.
Ive tweaked a few beliefs before when someone has shown me that the WHOLE of scrtipure wasnt being taken into account.

but Im surely going to make sure that I DO read Hebrews and find the harmony between it and the OT instead of just tossing Hebrews aside as some might have me do.

For the I think 4th time: coming from a Jewish Rabbi (which Jesus was), this has a totally different meaning – I would be more than happy to post my references if you like.

So in your eyes was Jesus not a Jewish Rabbi? Your refusal to accept this understanding of “fulfill” would seem to point that direction.

Jewish rabbi?
What point could that possibly make?

Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God who came in part to set those ''rabbis'' straight. Am I correct?

 

[muffler dragon]

Ive tweaked a few beliefs before when someone has shown me that the WHOLE of scrtipure wasnt being taken into account.

but Im surely going to make sure that I DO read Hebrews and find the harmony between it and the OT instead of just tossing Hebrews aside as some might have me do.

+

Jewish rabbi?
What point could that possibly make?

This takes the cake.

+

 

[YahwehLove]

Oh, that's right!

Nearly forgot.

Btw, were any of the authors, in your Bible, Jews? How about Sha'ul or Y'shua? I asked you that before, but it appears that you either misplaced that post (which I referenced a second time) or just ignored it.

Interesting.
Jewish writers telling the body of Christ that they cannot rely on Jewish costum or Mosiac law. And to do so will render the sacrifice of Jesus void in their lives.
Odd for Jews to teach such things, no?

 

[muffler dragon]

Let's look at a few key phrases:

Im just taking it ALL as its written.

Im interested in what the NT teaches.

Jewish rabbi?
What point could that possibly make?

I dare say, "Case closed."

 

[muffler dragon]

Interesting.
Jewish writers telling the body of Christ that they cannot rely on Jewish costum or Mosiac law. And to do so will render the sacrifice of Jesus void in their lives.
Odd for Jews to teach such things, no?

+

 

[YahwehLove]

Even if it doesn't exist, eh?

Heres the problem.
Just becuase YOU dont see the harmony, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

You ridicule me, because I don't accept Hebrews as readily as I do the Tanakh; yet you wonder if Y'shua being a rabbi makes a difference. Amazing.

I have had to wonder throughout this thread: why do you have the name YahwehLove? I figured it would be something other than Hebraic. Oh well. No need to answer. The irony just keeps mounting.

Not ridiculing you at all.
Shall we go be a few posts and see how each of us has spoken to the other?

You assumed me to be a Messianic Jew, I assume?
Not at all.
I believe in the God of Abraham tho.
I am not one who thinks God changes.

The point is the the tithe was part of the old system.
Jesus fulfilled the requirement of that system.
That system was a tutor. A tutor until the Christ came.
Now that that has happened, we are no longer under that tutor.
Ive presented scripture and it has been rejected.
And also Hebrews I suppose has been rejected as well.

We cant well have an religious debate when you dont even accept what I do as ''scripture''.

this debate between you and I, well, you and anyone who accepts Hebrews, has no where to go Im afraid.

 

[YahwehLove]

That doesn't answer my questions.

I would appreciate it if you would just answer my questions in the post.

Better yet, just answer this: were Y'shua, Sha'ul and the Apostles Torah-observant Jews?

Ill let Paul speak for himself.

For though I was free from all, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more.

To the Jews I became as a Jew,

that I might gain Jews;

to those who are under the law, as under the law,

that I might gain those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Messiah), that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak.
I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
Now I do this for the sake of the Good News, that I may be a joint partaker of it.
(1Co 9:19-23)

 

[YahwehLove]

Let's look at a few key phrases:







I dare say, "Case closed."

You kind of closed the case when you said that you didnt accept Hebrews.
I mean, honestly, what more can we debate if you dont allow my evidence to be presented?

 

[muffler dragon]

Heres the problem.
Just becuase YOU dont see the harmony, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

+

Not ridiculing you at all.
Shall we go be a few posts and see how each of us has spoken to the other?

I will not be shy. I will openly admit I have pushed the envelope. My reasoning is that I don't like it when people refuse to evaluate context. Whether you agree with me or not is meaningless, I want to discourse with someone who looks at the whole picture.

You assumed me to be a Messianic Jew, I assume?

Not even remotely. I presume you are the nominal Christian.

I am not one who thinks God changes.

+

The point is the the tithe was part of the old system.
Jesus fulfilled the requirement of that system.
That system was a tutor. A tutor until the Christ came.
Now that that has happened, we are no longer under that tutor.
Ive presented scripture and it has been rejected.
And also Hebrews I suppose has been rejected as well.

We cant well have an religious debate when you dont even accept what I do as ''scripture''.

this debate between you and I, well, you and anyone who accepts Hebrews, has no where to go Im afraid.

+

One further note: I never said that I reject Hebrews. I said that I hold the Tanakh over it. That is a big difference. Furthermore, I view the majority of the "New" Testament as commentary on the Tanakh. Therefore, it would only make sense that Hebrews would have some sort of support system in the Tanakh for your views. +

 

[muffler dragon]

You kind of closed the case when you said that you didnt accept Hebrews.
I mean, honestly, what more can we debate if you dont allow my evidence to be presented?

I never said that I reject Hebrews. Go back and read everything that I have said.

Lastly, I asked you for support for your premise throughout the entire Bible (and especially the Tanakh), and you gave me nothing. I put one stipulation on it and you couldn't produce. That's not my fault.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Jewish rabbi?
What point could that possibly make?

Well it’s a huge point. Like I said, when a rabbi would say “fulfill Torah” it meant something entirely different than what we in our Western year 2004 minds think. I would encourage you to research that you might find it interesting.

Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God who came in part to set those ''rabbis'' straight. Am I correct?

Yes, He was a Rabbi with S’mikah (what we would call Authority), and as such He could make a new interpretation to Torah (a “regualar” Rabbi could not do this).

You also posted that the only thing you were interested was what the NT said, not some "book". That’s fine, you’re more than welcome to have that belief.

The thing is, if say Paul had held the understanding of “all I’ll read is the Bible” we would not have the verses we have today. In the book of Titus Paul quotes the words of a Cretan (pagan) prophet – not only that but he affirms them as true. This prophet lived about 100-200 years before Paul, so how would he have known this? Because he was familiar with this prophets writings. In Acts, Paul is in Athens and he makes and argument for the existence of the One True God and he doesn’t quote Scripture, or the Torah or Jewish tradition, he quotes a pagan poet and affirms it as true and spins it for the argument of the One True God.

The Bible didn’t float down in a hermeneutically sealed bubble from heaven – it was written by real people in a real place at a real time. The term “no other Name other than Jesus by which a man can be saved” is actually borrowed from the Romans. That was one of the saying of Ceasar – there is no other name except Ceasar by which a man can be saved. Do you see how this didn’t just float down out of heaven, it was used by the authors to an audience that would have understood the significance of this.

The saying “being washed in the Blood of Jesus” was borrowed from the term used by the followers of the Greek God Demiter – where a person that wanted to be a follower of that god would stand under a grate while an animal’s throat was cut and the person was “washed” in the animals blood, this is how a person was inducted to be a follower of Demiter - this was known as being "washed in the blood".

Feel free to disagree, that’s fine, I would ask you do so in a respectable way. Ultimately I don’t think either of us is going to change each other’s minds……….so then it becomes “what’s the point”.

 

[muffler dragon]

Ill let Paul speak for himself.

+

 

[muffler dragon]

Wow, Andy!!! Wonderful points and nice presentation.