Did they ever run for a seat on the Sanhedrin?Andyman_1970 said:
In light of all the Bush/Religion bashing going on...
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
Surely you are not attacking the idea of tithes and "love offerings" as being against the mindset of Jesus??Silver said:
If you are then please remember that the commerce that was taking place in the Temple when Jesus flipped his lid was secular and some of it was very unholy.
I've often wondered why God needs so much money.
With all dude respect Mike, this is not the case Jesus didn't come to start something new, He never makes that assertion. Jesus never broke from the Jewish tradition, He was a Torah observant Jew, if He had not been, He would have been a false Messiah.MikeD said:
The early church was almost entirely Jewish, they went to Temple, they went to the Synagouge on Saturdays (that was their Sabbath), they were Torah observant, but they also had faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Christianity when it first started was essentially a sect of Judaism, and it wasn't until about 300 AD when Constantine declared it the state religion of Rome that it split from it's Hebrew background. This idea of Christianity being "something new" is an entirely Greek/Western idea and is counter to the Scriptures.
It's pretty simple fluff, Churches cannot exist without it. Missions to spread the Gospel cannot exist without it. In a secular world where money makes things happen the Church needs money.
On a higher level it is a test of faith. Giving your ten percent to the Lord is supposed to come back to you 10-fold according to the words of Jesus.
On a higher level it is a test of faith. Giving your ten percent to the Lord is supposed to come back to you 10-fold according to the words of Jesus.
The pope likes a fresh golden throne from time to time.fluff said:
Exactly my point, if Jesus had done anything differnt than this, if He had denied the authority of the Torah, He would have been a false Messiah (which I beleive He was not)Damn True said:
The pope's got a golden toliet!!!!!
The "new covenant" referred to in the NT book of Hebrews is better (or more accuratly) translated as a "renewed covenant" which is different than a new one.MikeD said:
Yes this is the was some Christians think, mostly american evangelicals (myself being one), however this is not an entirely Biblical line of thought. People were "saved" in the OT by grace just as people are today through Jesus, nothing changed, God did not change the "how" to get into right standing with Him, it's always been grace. Everything Jesus says is commentary on the Old Testament, not the other way around as some would believe. This kind of thinking is IMO a direct result of Christianity divorcing itself of it's Hebrew roots.MikeD said:
I just want to say before I get into this, finally there is a thread I can "sink my teeth into............." 
Jesus does address sexual immorality, which if anything "widens" the understanding of what sexual immorality is, that it is not just the physical action but also the heart and the mind..............see Jesus was into all this holisitc stuff way before it was cool..............He is an eastern teacher ya know.Silver said:
Jesus speaks plenty about judgement and Hell, He mentions Hell more than Paul does. Paul's stuff about "election" and stuff like that needs to be read in the light of Israel and not "The Church" as many do today. Once you look at Paul's stuff from the Hebrew perspective and understanding, and in light of the context of what was happening in the churches he was addressing, it becomes less "wacky" and more a commentary on the different social conditions of where he was.Silver said:
Ah yes, but we don't make the lingerie section of a Sears catalog illegal, do we? Or prevent people who have pleasured themselves when they were younger (or still do to this day, I've moved on, but I'm sure you can find someone with a department store catalog fetish) from getting married.Andyman_1970 said:
I've said before that I wouldn't have any problem with religion if it was like AA, and I think this is one of those cases. Your religion has a problem with being gay? Don't be gay, or don't be religious, then. But don't try to make it illegal for others who don't share your beliefs.
The point is not to "insulate" yourselves (if you're a Christian) from those things (lingerie section of the Sears catalog) the point is to use the sex drive God gave you the way He created it to be used (which is not limited to procreation).Silver said:
Granted there are from the Christian perspective Truths (note the capital T), but to "require" those who are not Christian to abide by them is funny to me. How does someone who has never heard of the Bible of God or anything like that suppose to know that XYZ is wrong? For me, several of the people I work with (for an example) use some pretty harsh language, but I'm not so "sensitive" that I require them to abide by my "standards", in effect they don't know any better, which is fine with me. Now if someone were to claim to be a follower of Jesus and use that language I would have a problem and confront them.Silver said:
Homosexuals for example, I really don't have a problem with, I disagree with their lifestyle, but I don't take a judgemental tone with them. Now this Gay bishop, this I have a problem with, here is someone who claims to "speak" for God and yet lives in a way directly contrary to how God created us to live..............that I don't get.
C'mon. He's part of a church that was founded on divorce. Kinda throws that whole sexual purity thing out the window...Andyman_1970 said:
True, church history aside, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus wouldn't it stand to reason that you would believe His teachings? As Christians we are disciples (Hebrew Talmidim), which means that our whole lives should be focused on knowing what our rabbi knows (Jesus), doing what our rabbi does, so that we can become like our rabbi, that is what a disciple is.Silver said:C'mon. He's part of a church that was founded on divorce. Kinda throws that whole sexual purity thing out the window...
So if we are to know and live out what our rabbi knew and did (which was entirely based on the Old Testament, as there was not New Testament when Jesus was around), why would someone who claims to be His disciple knowingly live a life (not just sporadically, but the contiual pattern) contrary to the Messiah he claims he's a follower of? Like I said, I just don't get it...........
Dang, there are some really good points being made here. Some of which are prompting me to learn my Bible better. I am also no biblical scholar, but I am a christian and recovering catholic. I don't know everything and I screw up a lot, but I try to remember a few things as said christian...
Love God.
Love your fellow man... meaning BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, dang it!
And that when Jesus accused the religious leaders of being corrupt and all, that the modern equivalent would possibly be the catholic church. Jesus, I trust... Churches I do not. Why? Because churches are made by man, and man is corrupt. We are not all going to make the right decision all the time. And by our very nature we are sinners. Which means that we do bad things. But it's all good because Jesus FORGIVES us.
For what it's worth, I don't worry about the world all that much. I like to whine and bitch but I try not to take the world too seriously. God has it covered. Yes I fight for truth and try to do what is right (to me), and encourage others to do so as well but I am not going to beat myself up when I screw up and sin again.
Not sure if I have a point here, I just felt that I had to express these thoughts.
This thread brought to you by Burly "No middle ground" Surly.
Love God.
Love your fellow man... meaning BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, dang it!
And that when Jesus accused the religious leaders of being corrupt and all, that the modern equivalent would possibly be the catholic church. Jesus, I trust... Churches I do not. Why? Because churches are made by man, and man is corrupt. We are not all going to make the right decision all the time. And by our very nature we are sinners. Which means that we do bad things. But it's all good because Jesus FORGIVES us.
For what it's worth, I don't worry about the world all that much. I like to whine and bitch but I try not to take the world too seriously. God has it covered. Yes I fight for truth and try to do what is right (to me), and encourage others to do so as well but I am not going to beat myself up when I screw up and sin again.
Not sure if I have a point here, I just felt that I had to express these thoughts.
This thread brought to you by Burly "No middle ground" Surly.
Don't worry about that, on theCiaran said:
you don't need to be a Biblical scholar to rant about things religious on here.................most who do make wild comments about the Bible aren't scholars either........... 
I like that, a recovering Catholic............Ciaran said:
I would not just limit corruption to Catholic churches, spend any amount of time watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network and you immediatly get this sick feeling in your stomach, like this is not right. How can these people spend SO much money a gaudy TV set and productions when SO many people not only here in the US, but for example in the Sudan are starving to death. Most of the time I think the point is missed in churches, the point is NOT Christianity, THE POINT is being a Christian, a follower of Jesus.Ciaran said:
Anyway, I'm trying my hardest not to let this thread die off, it's been one of the better religious ones we have had in a while, so come on people, help my Friday here at work just fly by with your comments.................
OK, when's it OK for a Christian to kill, and when should they turn the other cheek?Andyman_1970 said:
Here's a start:fluff said:
Exo 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill. Not meaning any sort of creatures, for there are some to be killed for the food and nourishment of men, and others for their safety and preservation; but rational creatures, men, women, and children, any of the human species, of every age, sex, condition, or nation; no man has a right to take away his own life, or the life of another; by this law is forbidden suicide, or self-murder, parricide or murder of parents, homicide or the murder of man; yet killing of men in lawful war, or in defence of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, or the execution of malefactors by the hands or order of the civil magistrate, and killing a man at unawares, without any design, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law; but taking away the life of another through private malice and revenge, and even stabbing of a man's character, and so all things tending to or designed for the taking away of life, and all plots, conspiracies, and contrivances for that purpose, even all sinful anger, undue wrath and envy, rancour of all mind, all malice in thought, word, or deed, are contrary to this precept, see Mat_5:21 and which, on the other hand, requires that men should do all they can for the ease, peace, and preservation of the lives of men: this is the sixth command, but, in the Septuagint, the strict order in which this and the two following precepts lie is not observed, rehearsing them thus, "thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill"; and so in Mar_10:19 the order is inverted.
Andyman,
Is it wrong to bang dead chicks according to the bible?
Is it wrong to bang dead chicks according to the bible?
Loopholes ahoy!Andyman_1970 said:
I'll take weird questions for 200 Alex...................
Per the Old Testament if you want to remain ritually "clean" that would not be a good idea. But if this chick is your wife, that might be within the bounds of marraige....................BurlySurly said:
Those crazy Jews and their loopholes...............fluff said:
A sad but true analysis..........what ever happened to faith?zod said:
Uh I'll need chapter and verse on that...............zod said:
I don't think it is a sad analysis. God knows that the world revolves around money and knows that in order for the gospel to be spread it will require money. As for faith, giving your income and/or TALENTS is part of his testing your personal faith. You know the "no man can have two masters" bit. I think tithes are a part of Him seeing who you want as your master, money or Him.Andyman_1970 said:
OK, you got me there, the tenfold thing is very philosophical and based on the circle of titheing which cannot be tied to verse specifically. It is based in denominational teaching more than straight verse. I personally use the term tenfold very figuratively as I don't feel there is no way to truly measure what you get back. For instance, I am also not saying that if you give $10 to God he's gonna give you a C-note back. Persoanlly I don't believe it works like that. I am saying He will reward you in some way/ways WELL BEYOND what you gave to him. The $100 out of $10 is a message preached by many preachers here in the South(the church my wife grew up in for one) and I do not agree with what they are saying to their congregation.Andyman_1970 said:
As for receiving more back than what you gave (I know, it doesn't say tenfold)
Malachi 3:10
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."
I personally do not believe the give 10% rule that my Church and most Churches throw around. The Bible itself specifically states to give an amount you feel you need to give. But it needs to be what you feel is layed upon your heart by God. For some it is 10% as is the case for my wife whom grew up in a freewill baptist family. For her the 10% financial tithe is very serious, it is what she feels God wants from her and she gives it happily. For another it might be 3% or maybe 25%. But it needs to be given without sourness or reluctancy.
First, Zod this is done with all due respect and in no way am I tryin to do a "smackdown" or anything like that.
I think way too many churches and ministries get wrapped up in money and as such some very un-Biblical teachings have resulted (which I address below).
The deal with this verse in Malachi 3 is that when it was written Israel was going through a famine, so when you put this passage in it's context both Biblically and historically, the point was not give money to God and see what He'll do. The point was, the "robbing God thing" was not taking care of the poor (which MANY times God identifies with in the Bible), and the admonishon was He'll open up Heaven and bless you if you care for who God cares about.
I bought into this whole tithe deal hook line and sinker when I first became a Christian. But the more I studied not only the Text, but also the context in which things were written (historically and culturally), it's pretty evident the tithe is irrelevant for Christians today. It tends to get my dander up when I hear a pastor assert that as a Christian under grace should give more than a Jew under the Law (which I would argue was grace also) and try to guilt people into tithing by teaching them its "Biblical".
I find it sad that so many ministries spend so much time asking for money and being so focused on money rather than having faith that God will provide and step out like those Levite preists did when crossing the Jordan.zod said:
I think way too many churches and ministries get wrapped up in money and as such some very un-Biblical teachings have resulted (which I address below).
This is probably one of the most misused verses that preachers use every Sunday. First, the tithe in no way kept the Temple or local synagouge running, Temple tax and synagouge dues took care of that. Second, the tithe was used for only two purposes, take care of the Levites as they could own no land, and take care of the poor, alien, fatherless, widow in the community. Another note about the tithe that you'll never hear, read Deut. 14, it talks about taking the tithe once a year and taking your family to Jerusalem for a feast. How many pastors from the pulpit say, take one month's tithe and take your family out for a huge meal.......I've heard none, and yet they claim to teach about a Biblical tithe. Also, other than Deuteronomy 14 where it says you can trade your produce/grain/animal in for cash because you live too far away from Jerusalem for the feast I mentioned, no where is the tithe cash money, no where.zod said:
The deal with this verse in Malachi 3 is that when it was written Israel was going through a famine, so when you put this passage in it's context both Biblically and historically, the point was not give money to God and see what He'll do. The point was, the "robbing God thing" was not taking care of the poor (which MANY times God identifies with in the Bible), and the admonishon was He'll open up Heaven and bless you if you care for who God cares about.
I bought into this whole tithe deal hook line and sinker when I first became a Christian. But the more I studied not only the Text, but also the context in which things were written (historically and culturally), it's pretty evident the tithe is irrelevant for Christians today. It tends to get my dander up when I hear a pastor assert that as a Christian under grace should give more than a Jew under the Law (which I would argue was grace also) and try to guilt people into tithing by teaching them its "Biblical".
I'm totally down with that................zod said:
It's never a smackdown as long as it is conducted in a nice manner, which you have done.Andyman_1970 said:
I agree that many churches get tied up in this as you are stating, but I still feel the church needs money to prosper and cannot exist without it, that the gospel cannot be spread as effeciently without it. Some churches therefor spend an excessive amount of time on the subject and even misrepresent. It is still our(believers) responsibility to do what we feel needs to be done to support our church(es) and missionaries. Some of that will be in money form and some will be in talents. The person who comes to church on Sunday and then gives nothing back in out of sync IMHO. Now that being said MANY pastors need to have more faith in their congregation than to waste valuable pulpit time overly talking about money.Andyman_1970 said:
As for Malichi I knew you would bring up that argument and I was well aware of it and was actually made aware of what you have said by my very own preacher. However just b/c that was directed toward a distinct group we can still take a message from it and use it. While I don't agree with you that tithes are irrelevant I do agree that they are often recieved through an improper message. See how long a church would exist if nobody gave money on Sunday.Andyman_1970 said:
Oh, one more thing Andy.....so you understand. I am not using the word tithe in the traditional sense as tithe literally means tenth and typically has to do soley with money in modern times.. Maybe giving would be a better word to use.
I agree it is a better word. So many times I have heard pastors say that the tithe (in it's full Biblical sense, not just a tenth) is relevant to Christians today and do the guilt trip deal.............. :angry:zod said:
I'm totally down with giving, I give out the wazoo, and not just money, but I make sure it goes to those in need that God cares about not some big haired preacher. I go by what John the Baptist said "if someone does not have a coat and you have two, give him one", my wife and I have gone though all our stuff and tried to do that..............I think that's called distributive justice.
I agree.zod said:
Am I that predicable? LOLzod said:
With all due respect, with this understanding why do we as Christian not observe say the Jewish dietary Law? Why don't we kill unbelievers like Joshua did? Jesus said He came not to abolish Torah, and the early church were Torah observant Jews, even the "anti-Law" Paul (which I would argue he wasn't anti-Law)zod said:
For me, when we don't look at the Text as being directed towards a distinct group of people and try to make blanket assertions that A or B is ok, but B and C out of the Bible are not, we get in that "pick and chose" mentality. My pastor for instance uses the passage out of Timothy to argue women should not be deacons/elders, ok fine. If that's how you want to look a the Text literally, then why are women allowed to speak in church, or not have their heads covered? The arguement becomes well because this or that was going on at the church in Corinth so that's not applicable to us today. Ok, well Paul told Timothy that stuff about women because of the worship of Artimus and the Gnostic Eve cults in Ephesus that had the women (decendants of the Amazons) running the show, men were not equal. That's why Paul wrote that stuff to Timothy, not as some cold doctrinal "truth" to apply across the board.
Anyway that's where I'm coming from, I try not to divorce the Text from it's historical and cultural contexts. Most Christians look at the Old Testament through the "lens" of the New Testamant, I do the opposite, I look at the New Testament through the "lens" of the Old Testament.
This is cool having a discussion like this on the
I enjoy it.