I have a question I hope someone can answer with documented facts. It is said that the NT is our Covenant and the OT we are not under anymore is this correct?
That is correct, Hebrews 8 states: But now He (Jesus) has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord , when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord . For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord : I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord ,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” In that He says, “A new covenant ,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:6-13 NKJV
That's just one of the scriptures.
Doesn't this make it rather plain that ONLY Israelis are God's people? That no other need apply?
And doesn't it put a definite halt to proselytizing and missionary work as well? For all His people shall already know him and He isn't much interested in anyone else?
That is an incorrect assumption: Galatians 3 states
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
The covenant promises made to Abraham is the 1St covenant, 2nd covenant is made through Jesus.
You may be right - your other post indicates that all from Israel are His people, and do not need being preached to, but all others are fair game. It would seem that they could be additional people of God's own, but likely need the preaching.
So with this being the new Covenant where in the new testament is tithing?
We tithe because Abraham tithed. The tithe came before the law. Don't get mixed up with old covenant and the law. The Law is called the Mosaic covenant.
So every one is under the Mossaic law? Even though we were not included under the old covenant, we were only accepted through Christ? Don't get me wrong I'm searching for understanding if my soul depends on salvation I'm reading and asking questions for clarification.
Didn't early Christians contribute what they could afford to a central fund that was then used to help those in the community who were in need? Surely Christians tithe because of their desire to help those in need, no?
That's called alms giving. Tithing is used to support ministry
What are you calling "ministry"? The sending of missionaries out to gain converts or the support (food, housing, etc.) of the local priesthood and their church buildings?
If I receive ministry from a church then that's where I put my tithe. I usually investigate the church and it's ministries and whether the leaders have answered God's call to that specific ministry before I will put My tithe there. I will not tithe into church that has occupational pastors, I refuse to tithe into someone else's pocket. The ministry and it's leaders must be God ordained.
1. the work or vocation of a minister of religion:
"he is training for the ministry"
synonyms: holy orders · the priesthood · the cloth · the church
2. (in certain countries) a government department headed by a minister of state: "the Ministry of Agriculture"
synonyms: (government) department · bureau · agency · office
3. (in certain countries) a period of government under one prime minister:
"Gladstone's first ministry was outstanding"
4. the action of ministering to someone:
"the soldiers were no less in need of his ministry"
Unless you refer to 4), the act of preaching, I'm still not understanding what you mean by the term. I'm also confused by the statement that "The ministry and it's leaders must be God ordained." as ALL ministers (preachers) will claim to be ordained by God.
I'm also confused by tithes in the time of Moses: where did THAT money go if not to support the church? Buy sacrifices, perhaps, and support the priesthood and any church buildings?
try using a dictionary bro.
How can anyone expect to have a discussion if they don't know basic dictionary definitions? It's like asking what does "the" mean. A bit like that old boring Abbot and Costello routine "Who''s on First?
I did. I even copied the entry here. I have yet to receive an answer as to which one of 4 possibilities was intended.
Would you care to try your own hand at which one it was?
Mate you've got to stop obsfucating. Many words have several meanings depending on usage. It appears that you want to be confused. This confusion only applies to religious or spiritual matters so why not stick to autos?
It's true that I'm not always familiar with Christian or other religious jargon. Those that stay out of churches often aren't.
So we ask for definitions - is that so bad? Although you might wish that religious jargon, used only in religious discussion, was known by everyone it just isn't so. If the only word you know comes from the religious dictionary you're going to always have a hard time communicating with those not of your personal religious bent.
I don't accept that because you've spent nearly all your time over a period of years debating on religious forums. Any dictionary covers basic meanings. If you want to debate a particular religion then it's up you to first educate yourself about that particular sect. Your special area is cars but mine is anthropology and religious studies. If I wanted to know about a specific auto repair I'd educate myself and ask the occasional question to a specialist. I wouldn't be ignorantly hammering rude questions online for years. Those who do that do not want education at all. Pretending to want info to create arguments is a major ethical failure.
"Any dictionary covers basic meanings."
Yes and no. It covers basic meanings, yes, but it very often does not cover other meanings even though they are used by a fair percentage of the population. Here, an example:
Full Definition of deduct
: to take away (an amount) from a total : subtract
: deduce, infer
As an electrician (which I am), if someone asks me for the "deduct" for 1/2" pipe (which I understand is not pipe at all, but electrical conduit) I will answer "5 inches". It is not a transitive verb at all, it is a noun: a specific distance. A specific place on the conduit to set a hand bender when bending a specific angle. There are tens of thousands of electricians in this country who would understand the answer perfectly, yet according to the dictionary it is incorrect. Unless, of course, it is a dictionary of terminology for the electrical trade.
Likewise, the sentence "If I receive ministry from a church then that's where I put my tithe." does not seem to match any of the dictionary definitions of "ministry", and I conclude that it is one of the millions of words that mean different things to different people. I therefore politely ask for the personal definition from the person using it in order to communicate better...and you declare that I should know what that person meant because all definitions are in the dictionary.
The English language doesn't work that way and neither do people.
If you read my previous post I made it clear that before you can ask an actual question to find an actual answer to a specific religion or sect you need to do some serious study of that particular group. You need to specialize in an area of study.
Think about cars. Each make has different requirements and parts etc. Would you instead of studying such an auto first proceed to go online and hammer away for years trying to find "the answer you want" or in other cases "the answer you don't want to hear". No.
This is why I can say with confidence that you are not in fact sensibly or politely seeking answers or knowledge. Why in the case of autos is it accepted that study and practice for each make is necessary but not for religion? Think of the thousands of technical and also slang words that say a mechanic might use. Wouldn't it be better to study up on mechanics and such specific words before hammering for years pretending to look for answers?
In all honesty I don't see the "politeness" in the approach of certain unmentionable atheist commentators. Certainly there are rude theists but at the moment we are talking about "how to study".
Words have very specific meanings and usages depending on the area of expertise. For example, in politics we could say "he ended his term prematurely"; while in medicine we might say "he has premature Alzheimers" which is a medical definition regarding the early onset signs and symptoms of a serious illness such as forgetfulness or an inability to learn new things etc.
If you want to be polite then first study and learn about the specific religion you want to attack.
Will a surgeon use all words identical with that of a psychologist? A dermatologist? A neurologist?
Unlikely. And while I grew up in a very Christian household, and have spoken to hundreds of Christians of varying sects, there is exactly zero possibility that I will understand the jargon of every sect any more than you would understand the jargon of Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists and Wiccans. No one has in depth knowledge of every possible religion and sect. In addition to that, Christianity has factured to the point that millions of individuals make their own religious beliefs with but passing "help" from organized churches and that can and does include jargon.
The definition of "ministry" comes to me from experience in childhood as well as communicating since then, but none of the possibilities appears to fit what was written. So I ask, and your rude insinuation that it was intended to be anything less than a polite request for information is obnoxious in itself. Not sure what I've said or done to irritate you so (except perhaps to ask hard questions concerning your belief of gods that you don't wish to be asked), but you really need to dump that pile of chips on your shoulder.
You are simply "refusing to learn" in the same way that you normally learn about autos.
I'm not annoyed at all just bored with a bad student of religion.
I note here you often refuse to respond when logic is offered. For example that your math ability can't possibly be greater than M theory inventors on other forums, and now here where you won't stop and study a specific sect before banging on for years. Again, look at how you study a make of car and the knowledge you need to proceed in that area. It is implied in all your responses that you haven't studied specific sects or religions as you openly claim "not to know stuff". This fawlty towers approach is to merely ask cynical rhetorical questions which are premised on a misconception regarding what you think a religion is all about ie usually that a religion or sects ideas must all be simplistic. Hence my observation that this is an insulting approach. Imagine if I started refusing to listen to you about the carburetor of a specific make of auto simply because I think all carburetorset are for the simple minded. What kind of student would I be? A stubborn rude one regardless of how such a student would perceive themselves ( probably self perceived as a genius). Hence boring.
"Imagine if I started refusing to listen to you about the carburetor of a specific make of auto simply because I think all carburetors are for the simple minded."
And yet...I didn't stop listening. I asked for more information, whereupon I was declared rude for doing so. I attempted to expand my knowledge, I tried to understand the belief being stated...and am rude for doing so. I can't study a specific sect and the jargon used because I don't know what it is (that information was not given).
Then I asked where I can find writings of the people claiming that M theory proves a god, only to be told that's unacceptable as well! The closest thing I find is this: https://proofforgod.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/m-theory/
where the author basically says "We don't have all the answers and may never have them. But if we insert a god into the equation (the "goddunnit" factor) everything is clear and works great. There must be a god". He even goes so far as to state there can be no other answer, apparently because he hasn't found one. Simplifying, then, if we use "God" for an answer to anything we don't know it all works. Well, of course it all works: that's the definition of a god. That it makes everything work, with or without the use of physical laws or anything else!
Now that's an unacceptable answer: "I don't know, so goddunnit".
So we do it because Abraham did it even though we were considered a different nation? You had Jews and Gentiles and then through. Christ came the church so now we have three nations. I thought through Christ the old law was fulfilled. In Matthew 5:16-17.
When they speak of old law that is referencing Mosaic law. Abraham's tithe to Malchezidek was not under law, it was just something he did.
I'm not a firm believer that tithing to the church is mandatory. I reference Jesus' flippant attitude when he had them catch a fish to get a coin out of it to pay the church. But, most religious look to the incident with Malchezidek for that belief.
Thank you all so much I'm clear on this.
Just a last thought. On a personal level I give tithes and offerings because I believe that the work being done is God ordained. Also because I want to express my worship and thanksgiving to God who has already provided so much for me. The little that I give can never measure up to how much He has already given. Be blessed.
I do to but more to people I see in need because I believe God will provide for his temple.
In the New testament Matthew 19 verse 17-19. When Jesus told a man keep the Commandments was that for the Gentiles also or was he still prioritizing and setting order back again for the children of God. I say this because Israel was split into two nations the ones that turned away and the ones that kept pace with God. Jesus gathered his 12 disciples and told them go to the lost of the house of Israel casting out unclean spirits and healing the sick don't go by the Gentiles get them first. So being that he said that he was reestablishing order. So as a Gentiles I should be happy to be included and not expect anything from God but Salvation which is fine with me seriously. But you hear so many promises in church what God has to do and what he will do which I have not seen flourish yet but please be paitient with me I'm studying cause some people if I ask these questions they think my agenda is tainted and off, but I'm doing this for me my soul eternally depends on me getting this right. Thank you to all for the insight I am so happy and grateful for the input so appreciated.
It's great that you are searching for more of God. In the Gospels Jesus was still preaching solely to the Jews. But He never refused faith, consider the Samaritan woman, the syro -phonecian woman, the centurion all Gentiles. Jesus first had to bring Israel back into right covenant relationship with God which He had made through Abraham. But if you read Genesis 12-22 you will see 1stly Abraham was a Gentile, 2ndly God promised that through Abraham's Seed (Jesus) all nations will be blessed. Ok, we know Abraham was a very blessed man by God even though he was far from perfect. In fact it's as though God blessed him despite all his screw ups. Why? Because God made a covenant promise to bless Abraham and all Abraham had to do was "keep it" (remember it, trust it, teach it to his people, believe it)
When God was leading the Israelites out of slavery at Mt Sinai God wanted to re-establish the covenant but the elders refused to talk to God and told Moses to be their go-between, their mediator. They said let God do His part and we will do ours (I'm paraphrasing). That was never God's intent, all God wanted was a people who would put all their faith and trust in His goodness like Abraham did. But they wanted a part to play in the covenant. That's why God gave the law. If you study Romans, Galatians and Hebrews you should get a good idea of what Jesus has done for us. I've only scratched the surface.
by AdsenseStrategies6 years ago
Answers on a postcard, please, to...
by Captain Redbeard14 months ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Rhonda D Johnson3 years ago
I've written a hub describing the effect Constantine and the pagans in the ecumenical counsels had on Christianity. I also read the writings of Justin Martyr where he tried to explain away the embarrassing extent...
by Abihahyil Shawmar4 years ago
Then why does Paul call it set-apart, righteous, good and spiritual?Rom 7:12 So that the Torah truly is set-apart, and the command set-apart, and righteous, and good. Rom 7:14 For we know that the Torah is...
by Irfan5 years ago
I'm interested to know more about the Holy Ghost ... I have nothing against the Holy Ghost but once i know more i may have extra questions... please try to reply with quality not quantity.thanks.
by Julie Grimes2 weeks ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.