Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Standing Firm In Christ

The Widow's Mites

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Ronda said:

Pastor Markle, I see... you then believe that the application of the word "gifts" in Luke 1:1 would suggest that the widow was also casting in "gifts"?

 Luke 1:1  " And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. "

Luke 1:2-4 "

2  "And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites."

3 "And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:"

4 "For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."

I do not see (in verses 2-4) where it states that the widow was also casting in gifts??? I see that she was casting in all of her money. Verse 1 states the "rich men" were casting in "gifts", verse 2-4 does not explicitly tell us that the widow was also casting in "gifts". 

So once again, we would have to determine what then the phrase  "more than they all" would mean in verse 3. Was she casting in more "gifts" than they all? Or was she casting in more money (proportionally to her income) than they all?

Sister Ronda,

It is precisely accurate to say that Luke 21:1-2 does not employ the word "gifts" directly in the case of the widow.  Grammatically, the word "thither" of verse 2 would refer back to the prepositional phrase, "into the treasury," of verse 1.  Furthermore, the phrase "two mites" of verse 2 would be parallel to the phrase "their gifts" of verse 1.  As such, the parallel of the two verses would be as follows:

Verses 1 -- "And he looked up, and saw      the rich men casting             their gifts    into the treasury."
Verses 2 -- "And he saw also                  a certain poor widow casting     two mites     in thither."

Even so, an individual might be able to claim that there is a contrast in the "type" of giving between the rich givers and the poor widow -- that they were casting in "gifts," whereas she was casting in a compelled form of tax.  However, the context of both Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4 appears to indicate that the rich givers and the poor widow were both giving unto the same treasury "offering" and were both giving in the same manner ("casting in").  Thus it would appear that the rich givers and the poor widow were both giving the same "type" of giving -- that either both were giving a compelled form of tax or both were giving a form of gift.

Furthermore, in Luke 21:4 our Lord provided his own assessment of the both the rich givers and the poor widow as follows -- "For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."  Herein our Lord Jesus Christ specifically assessed that the rich givers were giving "unto the offerings of God."  So then, the question might be asked -- Unto what did the poor widow "cast in all the living that she had"?  In the latter half of the verse and statement, which is the portion concerning the poor widow, that "into what" is not specifically mentioned.  Grammatically, this indicates that the "into what" is understood from the first half of the verse and statement, that is -- "unto the offerings of God."  As such, the parallel of the two halves of the verse and statement would be as follows:

Verse 4a -- "For all these      have of their abundance cast in      unto the offerings of God."
Verse 4b -- "But she              of her penury hath cast in               (unto the offerings of God)     all the living that she had."

Finally, it is worthy of notice that the English word "offerings" in Luke 21:4 is translated from the exact same Greek word as that from which the English word "gifts" in Luke 21:1, that is -- the Greek word "doron."

Even so, I would contend that if there is anything herein concerning the motivation of the widow in giving (and of the rich givers, as well) that is just this -- She thought and believed that she was giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Indeed, this would reveal that her motive concerned her relationship and spirit toward God.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 9:27 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.


Ahhhh!  So then, do you utterly reject the Biblical factualness of the following “evidences” –

1.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no direct revelation in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:45 concerning the manner by which the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”?

2.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of compulsion anywhere in Mark 12:38-44 or Luke 20:45 – 21:4?

3.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that the Holy Spirit specifically revealed in Mark 12:41 that our Lord Jesus Christ was beholding “how the people were giving” (not, how the scribes were robbing the people or the widows)?

4.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of anger by our Lord Jesus Christ anywhere in Mark 12:41-44 or Luke 21:1-4?

5.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that only active voice verbs are employed for the giving of both the rich and the widow in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4?

6.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported in Luke 21:4 that the giving unto the temple treasury was being given “unto the offerings [gifts] OF GOD”?

7.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that although our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes for making the temple into “a den of thieves,” God the Holy Spirit still called the temple “the house of God” in the very same context of Matthew 21:12-13?

8.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that (1) Luke 19:41-44, (2) Mark 12:1-12 in parallel with Matthew 21:33-46 & Luke 20:9-19, (3) Mark 12:38-40 in parallel with Matthew 23:1-38 & Luke 22:45-47 provide the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced the judgment of destruction upon Jerusalem and the temple therein?

9.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 8:4 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed a healed leper to give his gift unto that same temple system?

10.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Mark 11:15-17 the thievery of that “den of thieves” was contextually tied to the selling and buying of things and to the changing of monies, not to the giving of offerings unto the temple treasury?

11.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 23:2-3 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed the people and His disciples to “observe and do” “all whatsoever” the scribes and Pharisees bid them do?

12.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 the believers of Macedonia were commended for giving with “liberality” while “in a great trial of affliction” and in “deep poverty,” desiring even to give “beyond their power”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no direct revelation in 

Mark 12:40

 or 

Luke 20:45

 concerning the manner by which the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”?[/quote]The Greek that the word "devour" is translated from shows the manner,,, "forcibly appropriated".  They took the houses by force.  This could be by going into the houses and kicking the widows out.  It could be through laying burdens on the widows that would take away their ability to maintain and own a home,... thus forcing them out through destitution.

Interesting how the widow arrived at the Temple in poverty and left destitute, eh?

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of compulsion anywhere in Mark 12:38-44 or Luke 20:45 – 21:4?

2.
Highly doubtful that the widow was giving of her own volition, especially since Jesus had just revealed to all that the Temple had been made a den of thieves, and that the ones in charge were tobbing widow's houses.

3.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that the Holy Spirit specifically revealed in 

Mark 12:41

 that our Lord Jesus Christ was beholding “how the people were giving” (not, how the scribes were robbing the people or the widows)?[/quote] Forced giving is still giving.  Example:  People are made to fear a curse from God today if they do not give 10% of their money to the Church.  And so, to avoid a curse, they give.  Their giving was forced, yet it was still giving.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of anger by our Lord Jesus Christ anywhere in Mark 12:41-44 or Luke 21:1-4?

4.
 I see Jesus' anger at the fact that the widow wasgiving to an institution that He said had become a den of thieves.  

5.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that only active voice verbs are employed for the giving of both the rich and the widow in 

Mark 12:41-44

 and 

Luke 21:1-4

?[/quote] Again, it does not mean the widow's contribution was not forced.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported in Luke 21:4 that the giving unto the temple treasury was being given “unto the offerings [gifts] OF GOD”?

6.
Research shows that the money receptacles were named.  The receptacle was marked for "offerings of God," that does not mean they were going to God.

7.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that although our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes for making the temple into “a den of thieves,” God the Holy Spirit still called the temple “the house of God” in the very same context of 

Matthew 21:12-13

?[/quote] Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that (1) Luke 19:41-44, (2) Mark 12:1-12 in parallel with Matthew 21:33-46 & Luke 20:9-19, (3) Mark 12:38-40 in parallel with Matthew 23:1-38 & Luke 22:45-47 provide the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced the judgment of destruction upon Jerusalem and the temple therein?

8.
Judgment was pronounced for many reasons.  Many of which are seen in Matthew 23.  One such reason was the robbing of the widow's houses.

9.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 

Matthew 8:4

 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed a healed leper to give his gift unto that same temple system?[/quote] You are grasping Scott.  Mark 8 has nothing to do with Mark 12.  The events were at different time frames altogether.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Mark 11:15-17 the thievery of that “den of thieves” was contextually tied to the selling and buying of things and to the changing of monies, not to the giving of offerings unto the temple treasury?

10.
So, thieves will steal money but not offerings?  LoL  One day, they're thieves.  The next, saints.   Hmmmmm, I don't think so.  

11.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 

Matthew 23:2-3

 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed the people and His disciples to “observe and do” “all whatsoever” the scribes and Pharisees bid them do?[/quote] So, it is highly possible that the Pharisees did tell the widow to give her last two mites to their corrupt institurion.  

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 the believers of Macedonia were commended for giving with “liberality” while “in a great trial of affliction” and in “deep poverty,” desiring even to give “beyond their power”?

12.
Nothing to do with Mark's passage.

 

what I "utterly reject" is your blatant pulling verses out of context in a feeble attempt to prove that Jesus was pleased that a poor widow is now even poorer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015 at 2:17 AM, Critical Mass said:

The money is still going to the temple.

 

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015 at 2:44 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Critical Mass, there is nothing in the text that says the money was going to the Temple.  

Yet there is something in the text which indicates that the money was going "unto the offerings of God." (See Luke 21:4)

____________________________________________________________

 

So then, Brother Robey, you certainly do believe that the context reveals something about the widow's motivations in giving.  Indeed, you believe that the context reveals contradictory motivations.

First, you believe that the widow was motivated by devotion unto the corrupt system of the scribes, as per the following:

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 2:19 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

This shows a mind that is devoted to the corrupt scribes despite the fact that they were robbing her. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

Second, you believe that the widow was motivated by disgust at the scribes for taking her home, as per the following:

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 2:19 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

This shows a mind that is devoted to the corrupt scribes despite the fact that they were robbing her.  Further, she threw the money in rather than dropping it in.  The Greek suggests a violent action.  Questions would have to be addressed, such as,  Why throw the money in as opposed to just dropping it in?  Why ignore the warning?  Here is a woman who has lost her home, forcibly appropriated by the corrupt leaders in Israel, bringing all she had to live on to the organization governed by her oppressers.  Ignoring Jesus's words, she throws the money into the treasury with purpose.  They'd taken her home from her, they may as well have the rest.  The fact that she threw the money in as opposed to merely dropping it in implies anger and/or disgust.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Now, to me this seems a bit contradictory.  Which is it?  Was she devoted to the scribes?  Or, was she disgusted with the scribes?


Third, you believe that the widow was motivated by deception unto utter rebellion against the Lord her Savior, as per the following:

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 0:40 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Luke 21:2 (KJV) 2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

Here was a widow who had just heard Jesus' warning that scribes were robbing widows house.  And yet, she chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  She rejected the words of the One who would soon put an end to all sacrifice for sin.  She instead gave her last two coins into the very treasury of the men that Jesus was warning of just moments earlier.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Sounds cultic, to some degree.  Cult followers will ignore any warnings from outsiders who are trying to rescue them from danger. This widow chose to continue to give to the corrupt system despite the fact that she heard that widows were being robbed by that system.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Luke 21:3 (KJV) 3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

Luke 21:4 (KJV) 4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

According to Mark 12:43, Jesus spoke this to His disciples.  Did the rest of those in the Temple hear these words as they had the warning?  We are not told.  The text in Mark states that Jesus called the disciples unto Himself, so it is possible that these words were spoken privately, i.e.; only the disciples hearing.

There is no commendation of the widow in the text at all.  It cannot be possible that Jesus Christ would first expose the corrupt religious system and its thieving staff, and then turn around and praise a widow who chose to reject Him and instead foolishly put all her living into the coffers of that corrupt system.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Seeing the seeming cultic behavior of the widow, (ignoring the warnings from outsiders)  I am once again reminded of a woe levied upon the scribes and Pharisees,...  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Matthew 23:15 (KJV) 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

The widow had been made a proselyte of the religious leaders.  She chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  The corrupt religious system had her fully brainwashed into believing she was giving into the offerings of God, when in reality, they were robbing her of all her living.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 11:16 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Her Salvation was standing in her presence.  He warned of the thieving scribes.  Yet, she put the mites in their treasury, showing her devotion to their teachings.  Yes, she was showing signs of being a proselyte. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 2:19 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The fact that the widow heard Jesus warning is obvious.  And yet, she ignored it.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Ignoring Jesus's words, she throws the money into the treasury with purpose.  They'd taken her home from her, they may as well have the rest.  The fact that she threw the money in as opposed to merely dropping it in implies anger and/or disgust.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So then, Brother Robey, you actually believe that this poor widow was a wicked rebel against her Lord and Savior and against the message of His Word.  Indeed, you believe that she was "more" of a wicked rebel "than they all."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

1.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no direct revelation in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:45 concerning the manner by which the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”?

The Greek that the word "devour" is translated from shows the manner,,, "forcibly appropriated".  They took the houses by force.  This could be by going into the houses and kicking the widows out.  It could be through laying burdens on the widows that would take away their ability to maintain and own a home,... thus forcing them out through destitution.

Interesting how the widow arrived at the Temple in poverty and left destitute, eh?

I have no conflict with the meaning of the word "devour" as "forcibly appropriated," but that is not the point of the question.  The point of the question concerns "the manner by which the scribes were 'devouring [forcibly appropriating] widows' houses."  Furthermore, your answer indicates that the passages does not actually reveal this manner; for you can only provide suggested means ("It could be by . . ." "It could be through . . ." Indeed, I present that it could be by or through a manner that you have not even considered.), but you cannot provide the specific means. Why?  Because the passage DOES NOT specifically reveal that manner.  There then was the first "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

19 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of compulsion anywhere in Mark 12:38-44 or Luke 20:45 – 21:4?

Highly doubtful that the widow was giving of her own volition, especially since Jesus had just revealed to all that the Temple had been made a den of thieves, and that the ones in charge were tobbing widow's houses.

Ah, so then you find it "highly doubtful" from the perspective of your opinion and assumptions that the element of compulsion was not present; but you cannot actually point to the TERMINOLOGY of compulsion in the passage.  Why?  Because that terminology is not in the passage.  There then was the second "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

By the way, referencing the instance wherein our Lord Jesus Christ had revealed "that the Temple had been made a den of thieves" is a reference back to Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46).  Now, I myself am willing to grant you the use of this passage in your argumentation.  However, you yourself have actually denied yourself the use of this passage; for in answer to my question #7, you said concerning the very event of this passage, "Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21."  So then, should we be rejecting the event of Mark 11:15-17 (Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) as having any relationship to Mark 12:38-44 (Luke 20:45 - 21:4)?  Or, should we be viewing the two sets of passages as having a legitimate relationship?  Or, do you just believe in a double standard, wherein you are permitted to use the passage, but wherein I am not?

 

32 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

3.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that the Holy Spirit specifically revealed in Mark 12:41 that our Lord Jesus Christ was beholding “how the people were giving” (not, how the scribes were robbing the people or the widows)?

Forced giving is still giving.  Example:  People are made to fear a curse from God today if they do not give 10% of their money to the Church.  And so, to avoid a curse, they give.  Their giving was forced, yet it was still giving.

Indeed, you answer above might have some validity if there actually was some TERMINOLOGY of compulsion in the passage.  On the other hand, considering that the terminology of compulsion is NOT present in the passage, the active voice verbs are somewhat instructive.  The passage does not indicate that our Lord was beholding how something was happening to or against the givers, as passive voice verbs might indicate.  Rather, the passage indicates that our Lord was beholding how the givers were actively engaged in doing something, as the active voice verbs actually indicate.  There then was the third "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

39 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

4.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of anger by our Lord Jesus Christ anywhere in Mark 12:41-44 or Luke 21:1-4?

 I see Jesus' anger at the fact that the widow was giving to an institution that He said had become a den of thieves.

Ah, so then again you "see Jesus' anger" from the perspective of your opinion and assumptions; but you cannot actually point to the TERMINOLOGY of anger in the passage.  Why?  Because that terminology is not in the passage.  There then was the fourth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

By the way, again in your answer to this question you made reference unto the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46).  So then, is that actually a "different day, different context," such that "the passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21," or not?  Remember these are your own words concerning the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46). (Words through which you conclude by accusing me of "blatant pulling verses out of context in a feeble attempt to prove" my position.)

 

48 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

5.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that only active voice verbs are employed for the giving of both the rich and the widow in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4?

Again, it does not mean the widow's contribution was not forced.

Granted.  Yet it does mean that the focus of the passage is NOT upon how the givers were being moved by an outside force to give (as passive voice verbs would indicate), but that the focus of the passage IS upon how the givers were actively engaged in the practice of giving.  There then was the fifth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

52 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

6.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported in Luke 21:4 that the giving unto the temple treasury was being given “unto the offerings [gifts] OF GOD”?

Research shows that the money receptacles were named.  The receptacle was marked for "offerings of God," that does not mean they were going to God.

First, what EXTRA-Biblical source can you provide which indicates that the name of one or more of the "receptacles" was marked for "offerings of God"? 

Second, it was our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who reported that the givers' giving was being given "unto the offerings of God."  Yet our Lord Jesus Christ did not at all in His report indicate that this was a falsehood.  So then, although it is possible that the giving was not actually "going to God," it is equally possible that the giving was indeed going to the service of God, that is -- to the service of His Temple and to the needs of the poor.  Indeed, I would contend that the latter possibility is the more probable since our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT indicate otherwise.  There then was the sixth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

7.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that although our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes for making the temple into “a den of thieves,” God the Holy Spirit still called the temple “the house of God” in the very same context of Matthew 21:12-13?

Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21.

Ah, yes, there it is.  Although you have employed the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) many times throughout this discussion in favor of your position, you now seek to utterly deny the relationship of that passage to the events of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4.  So then, again I ask my questions -- Should we be rejecting the event of Mark 11:15-17 (Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) as having any relationship to Mark 12:38-44 (Luke 20:45 - 21:4)?  Or, should we be viewing the two sets of passages as having a legitimate relationship?  Or, do you just believe in a double standard, wherein you are permitted to use the passage, but wherein I am not?

By the way, in that context God the Holy Spirit DID still call the temple the temple and the house of God, and that only days before the events of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4.  Furthermore, I presented this argument specifically because you continued to claim that our Lord Jesus Christ would not have intended that anyone should give unto that "den of thieves."  Yet God did not view the temple strictly as "a den of thieves."  He still recognized it as His own temple and house, and He certainly could approve of individuals giving unto His temple and house.  There then was the seventh "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

8.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that (1) Luke 19:41-44, (2) Mark 12:1-12 in parallel with Matthew 21:33-46 & Luke 20:9-19, (3) Mark 12:38-40 in parallel with Matthew 23:1-38 & Luke 22:45-47 provide the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced the judgment of destruction upon Jerusalem and the temple therein?

Judgment was pronounced for many reasons.  Many of which are seen in Matthew 23.  One such reason was the robbing of the widow's houses.

Indeed, there were various reasons revealed in the various passages that I presented above.  However, the reason for which I made this point was because of the following statement that you made here:

"He states that the Temple will be destroyed. Why make the statement that the Temple would be destroyed at all, if not because of the unjust actions of its leaders? The prophecy of the Temple's destruction is made due to the actions Christ and His Apostles had just witnessed inside,... a widow being robbed. Context shows no commendation whatsoever."

In your above statement, you seem to indicate that the only reason for which our Lord Jesus Christ mentioned that the temple would be destroyed was the way that its leaders were oppressing the widows.  Certainly, this is NOT the only reason, as per the above passages.  Indeed, since the other passages present reasons such as the rejection of the Lord as Lord and Savior and the utter hypocrisy of the leaders, the event of Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4 did not necessarily have to be a motivator for our Lord's pronouncement against Jerusalem and the temple therein.  Even so, you argument above is quite weak in its validity.  There then was the eighth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

9.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 8:4 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed a healed leper to give his gift unto that same temple system?

You are grasping Scott.  Mark 8 has nothing to do with Mark 12.  The events were at different time frames altogether.

Certainly, the context of this passage is completely different; however, the reason for presenting this passage is because you asserted that the temple was "a den of thieves" (as per our Lord's declaration) and that the Lord would not be in favor of giving unto this "den of thieves."  Indeed, you presented the following here:

"Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God.

She was not.  Rather, she was giving to thieves.

Why would Jesus be commending her for putting her living into a den of thieves?  Obviously, He would not."

Yet in Matthew 8:4 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed an individual to give unto this "den of thieves."  So then, I ask the question -- If it was a bad thing to give gifts unto that wicked "den of thieves," why did our Lord Jesus Christ give this instruction unto this healed leper?  There then was the ninth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

10.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Mark 11:15-17 the thievery of that “den of thieves” was contextually tied to the selling and buying of things and to the changing of monies, not to the giving of offerings unto the temple treasury?

So, thieves will steal money but not offerings?  LoL  One day, they're thieves.  The next, saints.   Hmmmmm, I don't think so.  

Indeed, they might steal from the offerings.  Yet that is not really the point.  The point is that we have the revelation of God's own Word concerning the matter of Mark 11:15-17, but we only have conjecture and assumptions concerning the possibility that your presented.  I myself would prefer to stand on the ground of God's own Word, without overmuch conjecture and assumption.  There then was the tenth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

11.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 23:2-3 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed the people and His disciples to “observe and do” “all whatsoever” the scribes and Pharisees bid them do?

So, it is highly possible that the Pharisees did tell the widow to give her last two mites to their corrupt institurion.

Not necessarily.  Yet the point is if indeed they had given an instruction concerning the giving of that event (which I am granting for the sake of your argument, but do not actually believe myself), then our Lord Jesus Christ had just commanded the people to obey.  Certainly, obedience unto a commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of approval, yes?  There then was the eleventh "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

12.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 the believers of Macedonia were commended for giving with “liberality” while “in a great trial of affliction” and in “deep poverty,” desiring even to give “beyond their power”?

Nothing to do with Mark's passage.

Again, I agree that the contexts of the two passages are different.  However, the reason for presenting the truth of this passage was because you seemed to indicate that the Lord God would be contrary to anyway giving unto His offerings if they were already in poverty and if their giving was sacrificial and would place them in a condition of deeper poverty.  Indeed, you presented the following here:

It is foolish to even entertain such a notion that God is pleased when one who has little to survive on is giving all her means to thieves.

In response I presented the truth of 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 and asked the following question -- So then, is it your belief that the Lord our God is contrary to the sacrificial giving of the poor and needy and would never commend such a practice?  I believe that 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 reveals that the Lord our God is not contrary to such sacrificial giving.  There then was the twelfth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

What I "utterly reject" is your blatant pulling verses out of context in a feeble attempt to prove that Jesus was pleased that a poor widow is now even poorer.

Actually, in the above you will find that I only employed two passages that were significantly out of the context of the events in Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4.  Yet both of those passages concerned the matter of giving and of our Lord's view thereof, which means that they both are in the context of the subject matter at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus it would appear that the rich givers and the poor widow were both giving the same "type" of giving -- that either both were giving a compelled form of tax or both were giving a form of gift.

Pastor Markle, I do appreciate your time and study on this matter, as well as answering my questions.  But once again, I respectfully disagree. 

 

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Even so, I would contend that if there is anything herein concerning the motivation of the widow in giving (and of the rich givers, as well) that is just this -- She thought and believed that she was giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Indeed, this would reveal that her motive concerned her relationship and spirit toward God.

And once again, I respectfully disagree.  I do not believe it reveals her motivation of "gifts", even with the grammatical analysis, I come to a different conclusion. I conclude her motivation isn't truly given, and I back up to the statement I made previously: I conclude that the phrase  "more than they all" (in verse 3) would refer to the widow casting in more money (proportionally to her income) rather than more "gifts" by simple grammatical reading of the sentence(s) structure(s). 

I I respect your position, I just don't agree.

But rather than to continue on (myself) in this thread of conversation (in regard to the "widow's mites"). I will once again bow out of this topic as well. Since I've given my thoughts on the matter, and my own prayerful study conclusion (for clarification...not to say yours isn't prayerful study as well), I think it would be redundant for me to continue to expound on this thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really doesn't matter what they priests were doing with the money the law was in place and was to be followed. Even if the priests were spending money on hookers you were still supposed to give.  Matthew 23:1-3. It wasn't the responsibility of the widow to know how her offerings were being spent.

Now, this may be different in the church age and it may be wise to know how the money is spent but I do believe they Lord will bless a Christian who is giving even if his money may not have been appropriated right. Hopefully you have leaders in your church that you can trust.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ronda said:

 

Why are there so many "quiet years" between the early Church-age men and the 1500's? I think it probable that the Catholic church had much to do with that! Murdering anyone they considered to be an heretick, and that's a huge reason why the dark ages were dark indeed!
So before make such statements alluding to Darby being the first to teach the pre-trib rapture, maybe we should dig a little deeper into historical documentation, and rely less on what others have told us?

 

 

Ah, could this be where Invicta and GP got all their theology, from books originally written during the quiet years but later labeled as reformed. The majority of the ideas dreamed up by popes and Jesuits? Hmmmm, Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wretched said:

Ah, could this be where Invicta and GP got all their theology, from books originally written during the quiet years but later labeled as reformed. The majority of the ideas dreamed up by popes and Jesuits? Hmmmm, Yup.

Dream on

No quiet years.  The wrtiings were few because the RCC destroyed  them whenever possible,  Actually it is your futurism the is Jesuit teaching.

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, asingle individual, would:

  • Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
  • Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
  • Abolish the Christian religion.
  • Deny Jesus Christ.
  • Be received by the Jews.
  • Pretend to be God.
  • Kill the two witnesses of God.
  • Conquer the world.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years.  Available online in Latin.

Michael Walpole

Available Online from Google Books : A Treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam  by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by the English Jesuit, Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), 1613 edition. Christopherson is a pseudonym for Walpole.

The third chapter, titled "Wherein it is shewed, that Antichrist is not yet come", (pages 49-51) discusses the protestant (Lutheran) Matthias Flacius Illyricus(1520-1575) and his Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth who before our day cried out against the Pope (Catalogus Testium Veritatis - Basel, 1556), hisMagdeburg Centuries (Ecclesiastica Historia, 1559 - 1574), an ecclesiastical history of 13 volumes (1 volume per century) to 1298 A.D. which established from that history that the Bishop of Rome was the Antichrist, and a 1260 year spiritual reign of the papal Antichrist, proposed to be from 606 - 1866 A.D., with the Lord's judgment commencing in 1866!

 

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

There have been many false claims that Darby started the doctrine of Dispensation.  However, as Ronda rightly said earlier, there are many historical writings that place despensation centuries before Darby was even born.

Darby was the first one to put it in systematic form but you are right in that it was taught in various forms long before him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Invicta said:

Dream on

No quiet years.  The wrtiings were few because the RCC destroyed  them whenever possible,  Actually it is your futurism the is Jesuit teaching.

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, asingle individual, would:

  • Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
  • Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
  • Abolish the Christian religion.
  • Deny Jesus Christ.
  • Be received by the Jews.
  • Pretend to be God.
  • Kill the two witnesses of God.
  • Conquer the world.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years.  Available online in Latin.

Michael Walpole

Available Online from Google Books : A Treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam  by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by the English Jesuit, Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), 1613 edition. Christopherson is a pseudonym for Walpole.

The third chapter, titled "Wherein it is shewed, that Antichrist is not yet come", (pages 49-51) discusses the protestant (Lutheran) Matthias Flacius Illyricus(1520-1575) and his Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth who before our day cried out against the Pope (Catalogus Testium Veritatis - Basel, 1556), hisMagdeburg Centuries (Ecclesiastica Historia, 1559 - 1574), an ecclesiastical history of 13 volumes (1 volume per century) to 1298 A.D. which established from that history that the Bishop of Rome was the Antichrist, and a 1260 year spiritual reign of the papal Antichrist, proposed to be from 606 - 1866 A.D., with the Lord's judgment commencing in 1866!

 

Every post you prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are Invicta. Imagine how smart you could be if you hid only God's Word in your heart mediating on it day and night.

I know you and many others think studying man's word about God's Word is a form of Bible study but it is not at all. What you have done to yourself is simply hidden man's words in your heart which has twisted God's meanings in nearly every case.

This waste of a precious time has confused you to a point of no return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wretched said:

Every post you prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are Invicta. Imagine how smart you could be if you hid only God's Word in your heart mediating on it day and night.

I know you and many others think studying man's word about God's Word is a form of Bible study but it is not at all. What you have done to yourself is simply hidden man's words in your heart which has twisted God's meanings in nearly every case.

This waste of a precious time has confused you to a point of no return.

I have God's word and I believe it, not what you tell me to.  

OK. Lets look at some of your precious teachings.  

Daniel 9.  24 - 27.  No one who has never been taught from that before would ever conceive that there was a gap in the 70 weeks, or that knowing the city and temple were destroyed would see a future destruction, or that there was any mention of Antichrist in that passage, The fact that you continue to believe that "prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are." 

In Matt 24 ,Mark 13 and Luke 21, I have sown from the texts themselves that the tribulation was local and there is no mention of seven years tribulation there or anywhere else in scripture.In fact the only time period I see in the scripture for a tribulation is 10 days.  On another site I take issue with a reformed Baptist pastor who says that all tribulations in the scripture ore on Christians,  He is just as wrong as you are.

1 Thess 4:14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
A favourite teaching of the Brethren is that Christ is coming to the air.  When you challenge them on this, they will say that it does not say he will come to earth. But neither does it say he will not.  It does say the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, but it does not say he will return again. If someone comes from London by train and I go to meet them at the station, they are not going back again, they are coming back with me,

If you bothered to read the book in English that I inserted a link to you will see that is you that is following these doctrines of men.  

Here is another one that I mentioned.  Although the book is under the name of Juan Josefat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.  (You won't read it but if you do and page down far enough, it is to the Holy Catholic Church he claims to be converted to.) Google has it under his real name Manuel Lacunza. The translation is by Edward Irving, forerunner of the Pentecostals and Charismatics,  His introduction to the book is no exception, spreading over more than 100 pages.  .

https://books.google.co.uk/books?d=f2pAAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22The+Coming+of+Messiah+in+Glory+and+Majesty%22+Volume+I&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Coming%20of%20Messiah%20in%20Glory%20and%20Majesty%22%20Volume%20I&f=false

That is a link to the first volume  If you can't find it you can go to Google books and search for "Manual Lacunza The coming" and it should find it. 

If you would bother to read these you will see hat it is not me that is following Jesuit teaching, but you,

 

 

 

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

nowhere does the text say, or even imply, that the widow gave out of a love for God.

 

Had Jesus said, "This wonderful widow," you might have an argument that she gave out of love.  But, He did not.  Instead, He said, "This poor widow," indicating pity.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Nowhere does the text say, or even imply, that the widow gave out of a love for God.

 

Nowhere does the text say, or even imply, that the widow gave out of compulsion by the authority of the scribes; for there is NO terminology of compulsion anywhere in the passage.

On the other hand, the text DOES indicate that the givers, including the widow, were giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Indeed, the terminology of gift-giving IS in the passage.
 

18 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Had Jesus said, "This wonderful widow," you might have an argument that she gave out of love.  But, He did not.  Instead, He said, "This poor widow," indicating pity.

Except that in this context the word "poor" (Greek in Mark 12:42 & 43 & Luke 21:3 - "ptochos" and Greek in Luke 21:2 -- "pentichros") does NOT indicate "pity," but rather indicates "poverty," even as the following phrases in the context also -- "she out of her want" and "she of her penury."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

"Offerings of God" is simply the inscription for the treasure box.

Earlier I asked for you to provide your historical source for this claim -- that the phrase, "offerings of God," was the inscription on the treasure box, and thus not actually our Lord Jesus Christ's assessment for the reality and motivation of the giving.  Yet although you continue to make the claim, you have NOT provided your historical source for the claim.  By not providing your historical source, you leave us to wonder if you are just making up this claim on your own.

Furthermore, your claim really does NOT erase the point of my posting above.  Before us we have two opposing positions of understanding for the widow's giving; and joined with these two opposing positions are two respectively opposing motivations, as follows:

Position #1:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a complimentary example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- compulsion through the authority of the scribes (for compulsion is itself a form of motivation).

Position #2:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a contrasting reproof against the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- free-willingness to give "unto the offerings of God," and that sacrificially.

Even so, my point above is that the motivation of compulsion lacks the support of ANY terminology of compulsion whatsoever at all in the context; whereas the motivation of free-willingness does have the support of the terminology of gift-giving right there in the Scriptural context.
 

24 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Since the Temple had become a den of thieves, the receptacle was no longer for God.

Or are you insinuating that God is in league with thieves

So then, should I answer this with your own words, as follows -- "Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21"?

Or, are we now accepting that the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) does indeed have a connection to Mark 12:38-44 and Luke 20:45 - 21:4?  If we are now accepting this, then I will respond as follows -- Since the Lord God Himself, by the report of His Holy Spirit, still viewed the temple as His Temple and His House, the receptacle for offerings was STILL for God.  Or, are you insinuating that the Lord God could not still own and work through His temple in spite of the thieves, and that the temple and its services were not still to be honored as God's own in spite of the thieves?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and punctuation corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

according to the Mishnah, the receptacles were marked.

Indeed, Brother Robey, I have done research as well and am therefore quite well aware that the receptacles were marked.  However, that is NOT the point of my question.  The point of my questions is whether you can provide historical evidence that at least one of those receptacles was marked with the phrase -- "The Offerings of God."  For your argument has not simply been that they were marked.  Rather, your argument has been that at least one of them was marked with that very phrase, which you then claim is the very reason that our Lord Jesus Christ employed that phrase in Luke 21:4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Invicta said:

I have God's word and I believe it, not what you tell me to.  

OK. Lets look at some of your precious teachings.  

Daniel 9.  24 - 27.  No one who has never been taught from that before would ever conceive that there was a gap in the 70 weeks, or that knowing the city and temple were destroyed would see a future destruction, or that there was any mention of Antichrist in that passage, The fact that you continue to believe that "prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are." 

In Matt 24 ,Mark 13 and Luke 21, I have sown from the texts themselves that the tribulation was local and there is no mention of seven years tribulation there or anywhere else in scripture.In fact the only time period I see in the scripture for a tribulation is 10 days.  On another site I take issue with a reformed Baptist pastor who says that all tribulations in the scripture ore on Christians,  He is just as wrong as you are.

1 Thess 4:14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
A favourite teaching of the Brethren is that Christ is coming to the air.  When you challenge them on this, they will say that it does not say he will come to earth. But neither does it say he will not.  It does say the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, but it does not say he will return again. If someone comes from London by train and I go to meet them at the station, they are not going back again, they are coming back with me,

If you bothered to read the book in English that I inserted a link to you will see that is you that is following these doctrines of men.  

Here is another one that I mentioned.  Although the book is under the name of Juan Josefat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.  (You won't read it but if you do and page down far enough, it is to the Holy Catholic Church he claims to be converted to.) Google has it under his real name Manuel Lacunza. The translation is by Edward Irving, forerunner of the Pentecostals and Charismatics,  His introduction to the book is no exception, spreading over more than 100 pages.  .

https://books.google.co.uk/books?d=f2pAAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22The+Coming+of+Messiah+in+Glory+and+Majesty%22+Volume+I&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Coming%20of%20Messiah%20in%20Glory%20and%20Majesty%22%20Volume%20I&f=false

That is a link to the first volume  If you can't find it you can go to Google books and search for "Manual Lacunza The coming" and it should find it. 

If you would bother to read these you will see hat it is not me that is following Jesuit teaching, but you,

 

 

 

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

I know you folks think that those who dismiss reformed "theologies" are the ones skewed by men but you reference other men to make these points. It is outrageously ironic. I know reformed theologies are twisted ideas of men because it does not match my Bible remotely. Not because some men wrote about it or some "group" believed it however many hundreds of years ago.

Haven't you ever wondered that these "learned" men you quote at every turn could have been as influenced by satan as they may have been by the Spirit. Yet you still base your theology on what "they" deny or affirm.

Ditch it all and stick to your Bible only and you will never quote men again. Most important you won't be fooled by men again.

God told you that His Spirit would lead you into all truth. You don't need men's twisted histories, stick to His Word.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Earlier I asked for you to provide your historical source for this claim -- that the phrase, "offerings of God," was the inscription on the treasure box, and thus not actually our Lord Jesus Christ's assessment for the reality and motivation of the giving.  Yet although you continue to make the claim, you have NOT provided your historical source for the claim.  By not providing your historical source, you leave us to wonder if you are just making up this claim on your own.

Furthermore, your claim really does NOT erase the point of my posting above.  Before us we have two opposing positions of understanding for the widow's giving; and joined with these two opposing positions are two respectively opposing motivations, as follows:

Position #1:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a complimentary example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- compulsion through the authority of the scribes (for compulsion is itself a form of motivation).

Position #2:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a contrasting reproof against the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- free-willingness to give "unto the offerings of God," and that sacrificially.

Even so, my point above is that the motivation of compulsion lacks the support of ANY terminology of compulsion whatsoever at all in the context; whereas the motivation of free-willingness does have the support of the terminology of gift-giving right there in the Scriptural context.
 

So then, should I answer this with your own words, as follows -- "Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21"?

Or, are we now accepting that the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) does indeed have a connection to Mark 12:38-44 and Luke 20:45 - 21:4?  If we are now accepting this, then I will respond as follows -- Since the Lord God Himself, by the report of His Holy Spirit, still viewed the temple as His Temple and His House, the receptacle for offerings was STILL for God.  Or, are you insinuating that the Lord God could not still own and work through His temple in spite of the thieves, and that the temple and its services were not still to be honored as God's own in spite of the thieves?

Thus, I have said that it didn't matter what the Pharisees were doing with the money Jesus told the disciples to still obey them. Also, I agree the the Pharisees didn't blow all the money on wine and women. Most of it probably did go back into the temple.

5 hours ago, Invicta said:

I have God's word and I believe it, not what you tell me to.  

OK. Lets look at some of your precious teachings.  

Daniel 9.  24 - 27.  No one who has never been taught from that before would ever conceive that there was a gap in the 70 weeks, or that knowing the city and temple were destroyed would see a future destruction, or that there was any mention of Antichrist in that passage, The fact that you continue to believe that "prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are." 

In Matt 24 ,Mark 13 and Luke 21, I have sown from the texts themselves that the tribulation was local and there is no mention of seven years tribulation there or anywhere else in scripture.In fact the only time period I see in the scripture for a tribulation is 10 days.  On another site I take issue with a reformed Baptist pastor who says that all tribulations in the scripture ore on Christians,  He is just as wrong as you are.

1 Thess 4:14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
A favourite teaching of the Brethren is that Christ is coming to the air.  When you challenge them on this, they will say that it does not say he will come to earth. But neither does it say he will not.  It does say the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, but it does not say he will return again. If someone comes from London by train and I go to meet them at the station, they are not going back again, they are coming back with me,

If you bothered to read the book in English that I inserted a link to you will see that is you that is following these doctrines of men.  

Here is another one that I mentioned.  Although the book is under the name of Juan Josefat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.  (You won't read it but if you do and page down far enough, it is to the Holy Catholic Church he claims to be converted to.) Google has it under his real name Manuel Lacunza. The translation is by Edward Irving, forerunner of the Pentecostals and Charismatics,  His introduction to the book is no exception, spreading over more than 100 pages.  .

https://books.google.co.uk/books?d=f2pAAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22The+Coming+of+Messiah+in+Glory+and+Majesty%22+Volume+I&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Coming%20of%20Messiah%20in%20Glory%20and%20Majesty%22%20Volume%20I&f=false

That is a link to the first volume  If you can't find it you can go to Google books and search for "Manual Lacunza The coming" and it should find it. 

If you would bother to read these you will see hat it is not me that is following Jesuit teaching, but you,

 

 

 

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

Isn't this a little off the topic of this thread? Seems you are obsessed with disproving dispensationalism and premillennialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Thus, I have said that it didn't matter what the Pharisees were doing with the money Jesus told the disciples to still obey them. Also, I agree the the Pharisees didn't blow all the money on wine and women. Most of it probably did go back into the temple.

Isn't this a little off the topic of this thread? Seems you are obsessed with disproving dispensationalism and premillennialism.

Yes it is.  I was just replying to other's posts that is why I got back to the widows mites.

Wretched

It is nothing to do with reformed theology.  Our Church secretary is 'reformed'  and he is dispensational. Which is not surprising as he came from the Exclusive Brethren, as did his father, and grandparents before him. Anyway I have said what i need to say on the widows mites so I won't post on his thread again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Thus, I have said that it didn't matter what the Pharisees were doing with the money Jesus told the disciples to still obey them. Also, I agree the the Pharisees didn't blow all the money on wine and women. Most of it probably did go back into the temple.

Yes it did matter what the Pharisees did with the money.....and today, it still does matter what modern day Pharisees do with our money.

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matthew 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of our money.  Do you really believe that Jesus would tell His disciples to give their money to thieves?
Word of Faith teachers are Pharisaical...would you give your money to them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...