Tithing - The Truth Please

[BeforeThereWas]

The church building takes up most the resorces, and it is treated and Holy place. Hush in the sanctuary and don't bring in food or drink, have respect for the "house of God" and on and on.

Yes. This tendency among most institutions does tend to tread well within the realm of extreme.

THe church building is an idol to be sure the same as big statue of a goddess would be. Since most call the church a she you know.

This has its merits in relation to some, but not all those who attend religious institutions with buildings, etc. To that end I agree.

There is not place for the church building it is simply unbiblical and can never really be a true meeting place for Christians who want to follow the scriptures as to how we are meet together, and yes there are certainly instructions given to us by the word through Paul.

Well, if we want to talk about what's unbibilical, flying in an airplane is unbiblical. We all do things each day that's unbiblical. The difference is when we do those things that are anti-biblical.

So the fact is the the church buildings are Idols not can be, or are like, but ARE and sadly most are not even aware of this fact. Never the less that is just what they are and why not they are all pagan anyways, sad most the thing people do in those places is full paganism.

I tend to be less inclined to write everyone off as being idoloters just because they walk into a building designated for the purpose of a religious exercise. I will agree that most aren't aware of the TRUE purpose for the gathering of believers, and most don't come even close to fulfilling that purpose.

I'll also say that Gene Edwards and his lackies, like Viola, are euqally wrong on a number of counts, mainly their elitist thinking toward themselves. Christ is infinitely more than buildings, methodologies, and mindsets. He has been made preeminent in all things by the Father. Apart from Him, we have nothing of any real substance.

Churchianity is the neopaganism

I agree.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You see, the probably I find with scholars and people who dive for more knowledge about a certain scholarly subject is that the more we get wordly knowledge about this one subject the farther we get from the main point. The main point is this: God innspired the Bible and in the Bible it tells us to tithe, so what is the big deal? People need to wash their minds clean of the walls that are blocking them from the blatant truth. Seriously, I'm beginning to think that intellect is only a hindrance to what God wants us to see. Geez.

I would agree that there are indeed extremes to intellectualism. I will also say that the opposite extreme, from which you appear to be speaking, is equally problematic. Anti-intellectuaism is riddled with its own inherent fallacies. The Lord certainly had no problem utilizing reason (Isaiah 1). Finding the proper balance is where some go wrong.

Without applying the proper balance between your intellect and your emotions, at the exclusion of intellect, you're left with little more than your emotions. Emotionalism routinely ignores the fact that tithing was a command to the Israelites who were under the Law. Emotionalism also ignores how the word of God defined the tithe, and what was to be done with the tithe.

If you wish to talk about the tithe, then let's first recognize how God defined the tithe, and what He commanded to be done with it.

BTW

 

[Ryan Collins]

I think we as Christians need to be well versed and well read in the Bible and what it says, but alot of times we strive to become more intelligent that we lose the overall purpose of our relationship with Christ.

 

[Henry]

I get so frustrated with silly comments like flying an airplane is unbiblical. That is just silly, and not true.

Flying an airplane is biblical, because traveling about is biblical. The bible does not forbid travel and travel does not come into contradictoin with any biblical teaching.

Apples and Oranges argument.

Church buildings not unbiblical ONLY becuase they are not mentioned, but because they are in contrediction to what is there. They do not fir the definition of the word in the bible, they can not find any place in the context the language of the NT, they are not able to provide the right envoronment for a church meeting as described in the bible.

You should know what I mean when I say UNBIBLICAL before trying to argu what is and is not biblical with me.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I think we as Christians need to be well versed and well read in the Bible and what it says, but alot of times we strive to become more intelligent that we lose the overall purpose of our relationship with Christ.

Well, we engage many things in our lives that can cause us to detract from our relationship with Christ. Strong, intellectual knowledge of the Bible isn't going to force anyone to lose their relationship with Christ. That loss of relationship is a conscious choice an individual makes.

If my knowledge of the word of God causes those to disagree with me who consider themselves to be more "spiritual" in their understanding of the word of God, then a choice must be made. When I can point out the clear language of scripture, and pit that against the belief of the one who believes otherwise, on allegedly spiritual grounding, I'm afraid that the "spiritualist" is on the losing end of the stick, because the inspired word of God is the higher authority that serves as the acid test of that other person's alleged "spirituality". If that "spiritual" belief tests out to be false, then the "spiritualist's" belief is no longer so much "spiritual" as it is self-will parading under the guise of the spiritual, which is really nothing more than pseudo-spirituality.

At least, that's been my experience, generally speaking.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I get so frustrated with silly comments like flying an airplane is unbiblical. That is just silly, and not true.

It's absolutetry true, whether you agree or not.

Flying an airplane is biblical, because traveling about is biblical. The bible does not forbid travel and travel does not come into contradictoin with any biblical teaching.

Apples and Oranges argument.

Ok, so read my comment further down this post:

Church buildings not unbiblical ONLY becuase they are not mentioned, but because they are in contrediction to what is there.

I agree that most are anti-biblical when the majority of believer's giving is poured into them. I disgaree that they are anti-biblical if they serve at the same level as any other tool we may use within the realm of the freedom we have in Christ Jesus.

You should know what I mean when I say UNBIBLICAL before trying to argu what is and is not biblical with me.

Then please do fill me in on your definition of unbiblical. My experience with people has taught me that, for most people, "unbiblical" is synonymous with anti-biblical. Those two words are not synonynmous.

BTW

 

[Henry]

To be unbliblical means to be unsupported by the bible.

Air planes are fine, the Lord commanded us to travel about to all the nations.

I am insulted that you would think I am as simple as to say something is not biblical merely because a word is not there.

Listen the word Jesus used which we translate church, has nothing at all to do with a religous building. He could have used one that did, but he did not.

How many time in the NT are we told that WE are the church , WE are the temple of God, WE are the body of Christ and so on.

The word USED today is by its very definition not the same. It does mean a place, a building, the word Jesus used did not.

When Jesus said build my church, he was not talking about bricks.

But what makes a church building so unbiblical is that we cannot EVER actually practice church life as we are taught to in the NT, we can only talk about it, but never actually do it.

The idea of gathering and sitting in rows and listening to the same brother "preach" week after week is not biblical, because it is contrary to what is there.

Do not think me a simpleton. I am not merely talking about is the word there or not.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

To be unbliblical means to be unsupported by the bible.

You still didn't answer my question. Your avoidance of my direct question seems to indicate to me that you agree that something not mentioned , therefore not supported by the Bible, is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Is that right?

Air planes are fine, the Lord commanded us to travel about to all the nations.

However, air travel itself is still "unsupported" by the Bible, but not necessarily a bad thing. What matters is the intent behind the travel, whether on a mule or a 747. Right?

I am insulted that you would think I am as simple as to say something is not biblical merely because a word is not there.

I think you might enjoy discussion more if you'd stop looking for things to be insulted over, and write exactly what you're getting at rather than trying to create a situation where everyone's walking on egg shells around you. You leave many gaps in your posts that force others to assume things that you never clarify without being asked, and even when asked, you tend to avoid a direct answer to a direct question, as evidenced above.

Listen the word Jesus used which we translate church, has nothing at all to do with a religous building. He could have used one that did, but he did not.

Unsupported, as previously established, is not necessarily a bad thing. I can take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, and draw direct parellels between air travel and a common building. Granted, most of them are supported on the basis of having robbed God. That's their problem, not yours or mine.

How many time in the NT are we told that WE are the church , WE are the temple of God, WE are the body of Christ and so on.

Because most people look at their pathetic building as being the "church" doesn't give you license to try and take from them their freedom in Christ. Salvation isn't based upon one's understanding of the difference between a physical building and the spiritual body of Christ.

The word USED today is by its very definition not the same. It does mean a place, a building, the word Jesus used did not.

I agree. HOwever, that's not a matter of moral violation.

When Jesus said build my church, he was not talking about bricks.

I don't think there's one institutionalist out there who would say otherwise, so this is a moot point.

But what makes a church building so unbiblical is that we cannot EVER actually practice church life as we are taught to in the NT, we can only talk about it, but never actually do it.

Your departure from reason and biblical continuity at this point is quite glaring. The central, biblical purpose for the gathering of believers is for mutual edification. That can in fact happen within one of those buildings. I agree with you that this mostly doesn't happen within the vast majority of them. However, to imply that mutual edification cannot happen within one of them, therefore proving their "unbiblical" existence, is a shot at Pluto with a .22 rifle, to put it mildly.

The idea of gathering and sitting in rows and listening to the same brother "preach" week after week is not biblical, because it is contrary to what is there.

Well, you're going to have quite a time proving that religious exercise, in and of itself, is always contrary to the NT model. I agree with you that the typical religious exercise in our so-called "churches" is not at all exemplified anywhere in scripture, but that doesn't make them inherently wrong, just not supported by scripture, just like air travel, or driving a car, which is far more risky than riding a donkey.

Do not think me a simpleton. I am not merely talking about is the word there or not.

I never assumed you to be a simpleton. Even intelligent people can believe things that don't hold up to legitimate, reasonable scrutiny. If that were not true, then all those with Ph.D's would be right all the time, and we know that's not at all true.

BTW

 

[Henry]

I am not going to get anywhere with you, that is clear.

Good bye

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Henry, you clearly have an ax to grind with someone. I'm glad you prefer to grind it elsewhere. This thread is way over your head. You presume to make "church" buildings an evil thing, and yet you had no scripture to back such thinking. You can run and hide, but you'll never establish your arguments as fact by avoiding the hard questions that serve as acid tests of your reasonings. You've been found to be very wanting.

BTW&DM