TITHING DEBATE (NEGATIVE CROSS EXAMINATIONS TO AFFIRMATIVE SIDE) Part 4

IMG_4244

NEGATIVE QUESTION 1:

You have said Surewin Saul in your presentation that you will prove that the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% cannot be done as commanded by God in the Bible today’s time specifically, in the church governance.

HERE IS MY 1ST QUESTION:

HOW can you prove something which you can’t find it existed written in the scriptures like this claims you made “I will prove that the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% cannot be done as commanded by God in the Bible in today’s time specifically, in the church governance”?

(Pls. show me 3 or more scriptures as to establish your claims agreeing with each other by the context, not based on your own opinion,

AND

provide 3 or more credible references aside from the scriptures that should also agree with you, as you will try to prove yourself true to your claims.)

_____________________________________________

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1:

The scriptures;

“And the priest, the descendant of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive tithes; and the Levites shall bring up a tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the rooms of the storehouse.” Nehemiah‬ ‭10:38‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews‬ ‭7:5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work which they perform, the work of the tabernacle of meeting.”Numbers‬ ‭18:21‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

The above verses are saying that Levites was commanded to collect tithes, Nehemiah 10:38 says, it was Levites who shall bring the tithe to the storehouse; see Mal 3:10. The other 2 verses were instruction on WHOM the tithe shall be given. He is obviously not Levites, for that reason alone, I have no idea where he gets the courage and the FACE to collect what was not mandated for him to collect. And therefore, him collecting 10% as commanded in the bible shows only that he had to bend the commandment about it because, it cannot be done as commanded in the bible, he is not a Levite after-all.

My credible References

1.) Brian K. Morley- which he used also as  his credible source says; “Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent” https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/tithe-tithing.html

2.) Andreas Köstenberger – “Where does that leave New Testament believers? We are not saying that it is okay to neglect giving. In fact, the New Testament contains sufficient guidance for our giving. Second Corinthians 8 tells us that our giving should be relationship-driven, grace-driven, and love-driven. However, nothing is mentioned regarding ten percent. Click here: https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/to-tithe-or-not-to-tithe-with-david-croteau/

3.) Baker Robert A,[Baptist Seminary Textbook] A Summary of Christian History (Nashville: Broadman, 1959), 11, 43, 44. This Southern Baptist textbook states, “The leaders [before A.D. 100] usually worked with their hands for their material needs. There was no artificial distinction between clergy and laity.” … “The earliest bishops or presbyters engaged in secular labor to make their living and performed the duties of their church office when not at work.” (Page 194 and 250 in Should the Church Teach Tithing?) See link: http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id114.html

_____________________________________________

NEGATIVE QUESTION 2:

MY 2ND QUESTION

(Follow up question from A#1)

‘Though Nehemiah and Paul in his epistles to the Hebrews never mentioned church but reiterating only the tithes mentioning highlighting to support the house of God and his servants who worked on it, the Levites, Brian K. Morley as well said that,

“Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent, but it does reiterate many things associated with tithing: those who minister are entitled to receive support ( 1 Cor 9:14 );”

HERE IS MY QUESTION

Surewin Saul WHAT have you understood Dr. Morley’s word “nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving, BUT IT DOES REITERATE MANY THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH TITHING, those who minister are entitled to receive support”,

Would NOT those WHO ministers are entitled to receive support as ASSOCIATED with TITHING as Dr. Morley expounded?

YES or NO and pls. explain. Thanks.

_____________________________________________

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO QUESTION 2:

Yes but, associated does not mean receiving support is EQUAL to receiving tithing or 10% otherwise, it would be contradicting when he said;

“Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent”…..Paul’s vocabulary and teaching suggest that giving is voluntary and that there is no set percentage”

Besides, when he said entitled to receive support quoting 1 Cor 9:14. Morley did not elaborate further what kind of support, was it financial or food based?

Truth be told when Paul said that God commanded preacher to live by the Gospel. It was based on the below verses:

…for a worker is worthy of his food.”Matthew‬ ‭10:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

…“for the laborer is worthy of his wages” Luke‬ ‭10:7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

But then again, what is that wage Jesus is talking about? Is that money?

Prior to verse 7, verse 4 of Luke says;

“Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road.”

They were not allowed to carry money bag so that when they enter the house, they did not accept the money because they were instructed to give freely as it was freely received (Matt 10:8). So then, what was allowed for them to take? Verse 7 of Luke also says; “.. remain in the same house, eating and drinking.

Yes! their wage refers to food, it cannot be money because they were not allowed to carry money in the first place. This was the support 1 Cor. 9:14 was talking about in parallelism with the old testament since the support that the Levites gets (tithes) was also food (Lev 27:30). But, even these support, Apostles wish not to accept it not that they don’t have the right but for followers to follow. 2 Thess‬ ‭3:7-10.

_____________________________________________

Highlights on what happened in between Q2 and Q3.

When the negative side questioned below:

MY 3RD QUESTION Surewin Saul, were Christians in the New Testament Dr. Morley mentioned from the context of his presentation quoting 1 Cor. 9:14 refers to the present Christians or the Christians during Paul’s time under the Roman Government that has no Juridical Personality or Legal entity yet?

Affirmative side objected to the moderator that his line of questioning is inappropriate since the question is not based on the presentation but based on the affirmative answer in his Q1 where he quoted the author in subjects. Affirmative highlighted that the rules state only to question what had been presented. The works of the author and the name were not mentioned in the presentation for it to be subject for cross-examination.

Moderators ruled out in favor of the affirmative objection and asked the negative side to rephrase the question.

_____________________________________________

NEGATIVE QUESTION 3:

Ok then good moderators Christine and Glomen Delacruz if my opponent would not consider his answers be in agreement to his presentation as he would not allow it to be interrogated, I will now rephrase my QUESTION #3 not to mention Dr. Morley where my opponent has also said, his works are against my stand (unproven).

————————–

MY 3RD QUESTION (Rephrased based now in my opponent’s presentation)

He said,

“Let us first define mandate as I don’t understand why my opponent wants this word:

One meaning of mandate is, an authoritative order or command.

See here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mandate”

This QUESTION is to test if my opponent himself really understand properly the word MANDATE as how it is been used in connection to LAW, official or legal aspects,

When I saw the link Surewin Saul you posted for the proper definition of the word MANDATE you want me to see PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION (attached pic),

Here is its complete definition from the link itself you want me to see:

MANDATE (proper definition)

noun

– a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative:

The president had a clear mandate to end the war.

– a command from a superior court or official to a lower one:

The appellate court resolved the appeal and issued a mandate to the district judge.

– an authoritative order or command:

a royal mandate.

(in the League of Nations) a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former Turkish territory or German colony.

SEE MORE

verb (used with object), man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing.

– to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law:

The state legislature mandated an increase in the minimum wage.

HERE IS MY QUESTION

Based on your statement quoted above as manifesting your idea which seems cloudy to me pertaining to understanding the proper use of the word MANDATE as you remove the entire thought of the definition, much when tethering it to LAW or legal matters, like the LAWS of God and the LAWS of the land,

ARE THE WORDS “authoritative order, command or commanding”, CAN BE COMPLETE THOUGHTS where you selectively removed it from its proper legal terms as to define the word MANDATE when fettering it to LAW (concerning specifically to both Law of God and the Law of the land) or you are just injecting your own idea and removing the complete thoughts of its definition?

If your answer is YES, then show me your proof, it says or mentions “legal” or pertaining to legality.

If you answer is NO, then present your proof, it says or mentions “legal” or pertaining to legality.

_____________________________________________

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO QUESTION 3:

Can the words “authoritative order, command be a complete thoughts?

Yes. If by “complete thoughts” means must be used in legal terms. It can, you just need to put a subject on it.

The mandate is a general term that can be used in legal terms or in the context of the Law. You just need to put a proper subject on the meaning I used “authoritative order or command” to be within the proper legal terms of the law.

Example:

The Judge has an authoritative order or command to issue a warrant of arrest.

Or, if I rephrase it;

The Judge has the mandate to issue a warrant of arrest.

So you see, I only put a subject “Judge” and used “authoritative order or command” then it becomes as he wanted, tethering it to LAW or legal matters.

In relation to our topic, God is that Judge, He is the one who mandates the 10% and in that mandate, he also said what and to whom it shall be given.

The one who can change the mandate is the one who mandated it. And, should that be the case, there has to be proper documents and proofs that the mandate or the Judge authoritative order was changed. If not, those who change it without prior approval or legal proof that the judge has changed his mandate, it will be classified as already a crime both under the law of the land and to God.

In relation to our topic, the legal proof pertains to the bible verses in the bible as proofs that God who mandated the 10% really had changed the mandate on what and to whom shall it be given. If this legal proof is not provided, the man who changes it might be committing a crime.

_____________________________________________

NEGATIVE QUESTION 4:

Surewin Saul in your presentation you said this:

“Now, let’s check if the mandate of God in regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible is really being followed by most church governance. Then, let’s check if it can be done as commanded in today’s time.

What was the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible? I repeat, IN THE BIBLE to press on that the topic requires that the mandate or commandment was to be from the bible.”

The reference you posted linking to the online dictionary where you draw the definition of the word MANDATE you used in your presentations showed it clear that you never used its proper meaning but you again build your assumption based on your understanding and opinion about it which you failed to understand its legal importance as removing or cutting off the proper definition given by dictionaries, where MANDATE is

——-

NOUN

– a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative:

– a command from a superior court or official to a lower one:

– an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

– a commission was given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former .. territory or … colony.

VERB (used with object), man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing.

– to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law:

The state legislature mandated an increase in the minimum wage.

——

and never dictionaries mentioned God for God never had a legislative body, officials, administers, commissioners who can vote and approve law, decrees, ordinance or statutes to be mandated, compared to your personal selective words of defining it based on your understanding only,

HERE IS MY QUESTION

Is MANDATE and COMMANDMENT to you the same meaning and use?

If YES, pls. explain and show concrete proofs from at least 3 scriptures 3 reliable commentaries where the word “mandate” and “commandments of God” were used interchangeably.

If NO, then tell me why with back up credible proofs to justify your personal ideas.

_____________________________________________

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO QUESTION 4:

Yes and No. It depends on how you used in the sentence.

The dictionary synonymize mandate to commands as attached.

a synonym is meant to show what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action

Since mandate was synonymized to command then, it must mean, it’s a command or type of command.

It’s not for me to tell what it meant, the dictionary says it is, who am I to disagree and who are you to question it?

On the proof he asked, the dictionary is enough.

The bible did not even used mandate on 10% rather, it was a commandment as the verse below. It was not part of the the 10 commandments but part of levitical priesthood commandment exclusively to Levites who were already changed to Jesus Christ.

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews‬ ‭7:5‬ ‭NKJV

_____________________________________________

Highlights on what happened in between Q4 and Q5.

Negative objected that I did not provide what has been asked. Affirmative highlighted that there is a rebuttal part of the debate to which if a cross-examiner find the answer not satisfactory, it can be done in the rebuttal part. At this point, the negative side already posted his No. 5 question while moderator has not yet decided on his objection on the affirmative answer.

At this point also, affirmative also object on question 5 the negative posted. According to him, it was not related to the presentation.

Going back to Q4, finally, moderator ruled out that Affirmative need to provide 2 more sources as required in the negative number 4 question.

Affirmative complied.

In compliance with Moderator Judgement. Christine Marie Reluya Cajeta

The other 2 can be my source

1. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mandate

According to the site, one of the primary meaning is a document giving an official instruction or command. In relation to our topic, since we are talking about God’s mandate and that his mandate can be found in the bible, this means the document in the context of our topic is referring to the bible. True enough our topic is about God’s mandate on 10% as commanded in the bible.

2.) https://www.etymonline.com/word/mandate

According to the site, it’s directly from a latin Mandatum, “commission, command, order,”

In addition, Negative and affirmative seems to go back and forth an argument. The negative side is saying that the affirmative did not use the definition in the link provided (see here). Meanwhile, affirmative is saying that he only pick one of the definition in the link provided that suit to his presentation specifically definition no. 3. Negative seems to point out that the affirmative does not know the proper use of the word mandate. According to him, the affirmative reference never linked the word mandate to God for mandate will ONLY follow after decree, ordinance, statutes or rules approved by officials.

At this point, it seems the negative side is disappointed that he might not continue further

The affirmative side eventually decided to wave his objection on the negative question no.5 so as to move forward.

_____________________________________________

NEGATIVE QUESTION 5:

MY 5TH QUESTION

Surewin Saul in your presentation you attempted to use the word MANDATE based not from the dictionary’s you presented but your own understanding as cutting it off from its original reference and you said this:

“Now, let’s check if the mandate of God in regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible is really being followed by most church governance. Then, let’s check if it can be done as commanded in today’s time.

What was the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible? I repeat, IN THE BIBLE to press on that the topic requires that the mandate or commandment was to be from the bible.”

As I asked you this if MANDATE and COMMANDMENT to you the same meaning and use, you clarified it not.

HERE IS MY QUESTION BASED ON HOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORD “MANDATE” in your presentation AS IF YOU THINK THIS WORD IS INTERCHANGEABLE TO THE WORD “COMMANDMENT OF GOD”.

WHERE can you find, the government calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution by its officials a COMMANDMENT?

Pls. show me proof of copies, the government by any agencies submitted to the public as to disseminate the information you can read an ordinance, decree, rules or statutes addressed as COMMANDMENT.

_____________________________________________

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO QUESTION 5:

If I’m not mistaken as I’m not a legal expert, my opponent maybe correct that when the government calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution by its officials, it is called a mandate rather than a commandment. Meaning, “mandate” may be the most proper term when it comes to legal governance of men and I believe my opponent also has bearing when he seems to imply that the term mandate should never be linked to God. True enough, the reference I provided never linked ”mandate” to God. To this I say, my opponent is true to his observation, he has a keen eye indeed.

Therefore, since my position is to prove God’s MANDATE on 10% as commanded in the bible cannot be done. This is now even more vindicated since mandate should not be linked to God as it is ONLY a proper term used for legal officials of the land of men. True enough, we can never found in the bible that God mandated the 10%. The mandate is not the proper term as explained above but “commandment”. The bible is clear that God did not mandate the 10% but, commanded it in the verse below:

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a 👉commandment👈 to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews‬ ‭7:5‬ ‭NKJV

I admit I did use mandate and commandment interchangeably. I am thanking my opponent that because of his proper word study, it seems the term mandate is only used when the government of men calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution by its officials meaning, this is a legal term that should not be linked to God. Apparently, our topic is for me to prove that the mandate of God about the 10% as commanded in the bible cannot be done. Applying my opponent proper word study, God actually did not mandate the 10% in the first place as He is not a governing body of officials.

So, I thank my opponent for his proper word study because it did prove that God did not EVEN mandate the 10%. The bible termed it actually as “commandment” as stated in the verse above.

Never can you find in the bible that God MANDATED the 10% specifically using the word “mandated” in respect to 10%. Why? Because, my opponent knows the proper word study about the term mandate and it never linked to God as it is used ONLY when the government of men calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution.

_____________________________________________

Highlights on what happened in between Q5 and Q6.

At this point, the negative side had complained of the way the affirmative answer since to him though, it was an admission, it was also to him conclusive and kinda seem like a rebuttal.

However, the affirmative side highlighted that during his cross-examination he had done the same on his answer 5.

Affirmative Q5:

Negative side answer:

Affirmative complaints:

Counter complain by the negative side:

Moderator’s verdict:

Also, in Q8 of affirmative cross-examination, he also complained to the moderator that he was not answering what was being asked but Moderator ruled in favor of him.

Screen Shot 2019-06-22 at 5.32.51 PM

Screen Shot 2019-06-22 at 5.32.56 PM

Screen Shot 2019-06-22 at 5.33.08 PM

Screen Shot 2019-06-22 at 5.33.16 PM

So as the above proof, at the time when the affirmative was doing his cross-examination, the moderator had reminded the affirmative that the subject in question can answer in the ways or style he likes and this should not be questioned. Moreover, in affirmative Q8, he also complained that the negative is not answering as asked but the moderator ruled that if affirmative feels like he is not answering, do it in the rebuttal because that is what the rebuttal is for.

In the same manner, Mr. Negative also objects in the way Mr. Afiirmative answer in his Q4, Q5 and keep complaining that the affirmative was not answering what was being asked or at least, that was how the negative side feels. Obviously, this was the same case that affirmative was complaining during his cross-examination which was ruled to be in favor of the Negative side at that time.

Mr. Negative objection:

(Part 1 of negative complain)

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 8.00.16 PM

(Part 2 of Negative complaint)

screen-shot-2019-06-21-at-8.09.44-pm-e1561119189352.png

Moderator’s Response:

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 8.16.36 PM

And, Moderator’s verdict on Mr. Negative complains.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 8.36.20 PM

At this point, Mr. Negative did not accept the Moderator’s ruling even if it was the same ruling that was applied to the affirmative during his cross-examination. Mr. Negative even appeal to other moderators on Moderator Christine decision.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 8.55.16 PM

The argument between the Negative side and the Moderator herself seems to go back and forth to a point where Mr. Negative even question how the moderator understands the rules which she writes by herself.

Author

When the result of the appeal came out, it was denied but this did not stop the negative side to still objects and argue with their decision.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 8.58.47 PM

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.06.00 PM

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.02.00 PM

At this point, Mr. Negatives seems to request already to change the moderator.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.09.23 PM

Finally, Moderator Christine gives 24 hours for Mr. Negative to continue his cross-examination otherwise, Affirmative can proceed with his rebuttals. At this point also, the moderator had posted the status on the violation concurred during the debate and finally, the negative posted his number 6th question.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.10.53 PM

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.13.40 PM

_____________________________________________

NEGATIVE QUESTION 6:

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.18.30 PM

_____________________________________________

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO QUESTION 6:

1.) (Deut. 14:22-26) contextually, this tithe was referred to be the tithe of the feast, it was to be brought and eat in the temple where God chooses to abide. In parallelism to modern times, our body becomes the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) therefore, we who believe in Christ becomes the house of God so, to bring and eat this tithe in temple simply means, bring it to ourselves since we who believe in Christ becomes the house of God. It is kinda like a Thanksgiving, a celebration to enjoy the blessings that God has given us.

2.) Leviticus 27:30- In this verse, contextually, God said that all the tithe of the Land whether the seed of the land or fruits of the trees is His. This tithe was in connection with Numbers 18:21, Mal. 3:10, Nehemiah 10:38. This is the tithe allotted for Levites support as commanded by God. This was not money as the verse in itself had only given two option on what to tithe.

1.) The seed of the land
2.) Fruits of the tree

Although in another verse (Lev 27:32) animals who pass under the shepherd’s rod is also a tithe and is holy to the Lord, still money was not in the option.

Since in the context of the verse, it was connected to Num 18:21 to which was specifically instructed to be collected by Levites. Should we parallel it in today’s time whereby our body becomes the house of God (1 Corinthians 6:19). The preacher who is also a house of God will become the spiritual Levites. Like Levites who receive tithes, Spiritual Levites also will receive tithe but this time, the tithe becomes spiritual.

Spiritual tithes because in modern times, the preacher in the house of God (believers) are not really Levites but Spiritual Levites therefore, Lev 27:30 tithes in the literal sense can be parallel in today’s time to become SPIRITUAL TITHES.

What are Spiritual Tithes?

Spiritual tithes are when a person who respects a lot of respectable people consider you or acknowledge you to be one of them, this becomes your spiritual tithes- earning respect and acknowledgment from other people in respect to your function as the preacher of the word.

Respect and acknowledgment are spiritual earning or tithe for a true spiritual Levites in modern times.

_____________________________________________

NEGATIVE QUESTION 7:

From your statements copy/pasted below Surewin Saul you said this,

“2.) Now, let’s check on what God had MANDATED on to whom the tithe shall be given.

“Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work which they perform, the work of the tabernacle of meeting.” Numbers 18:21 NKJV

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews 7:5 NKJV

In the above verse, it is clear that the tithe as commanded by God in the bible was to be received by the Levites.

Now, was there any other MANDATED or commanded tithe in the bible other than what was written under the law?
Q: Was Abraham commanded or MANDATED to tithe?
A: No commandment or MANDATE was mentioned in the bible? Take note, the topic requires giving 10% as commanded in the bible.
Q: Was Melchizedek commanded or MANDATED to collect tithe?
A: No commandment or MANDATE was mentioned in the bible also. Take note, the topic requires giving 10% as commanded in the bible.
Q: Where can we find the commandment or MANDATE to give 10%?
A: We can find it under the law apparently, in the MANDATE to give 10%, God also MANDATED it to be 1.) agricultural and 2.) was to be received by the Levites.”

HERE IS MY QUESTION

HOW will you rephrase now all the words “MANDATED” (capslock mine) you mentioned in your statements as admitting you were thankful of knowing now that mandate’s proper definition refers to laws that can be amended done by the board, elders, leaders, or by legislative procedures unlike the word “commandments” that cannot, of which bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, bible commentaries refers to the ten commandments of God, the reason you admitted as well that mandate and commandments isn’t interchangeable?

I want you to retain your exact words presented except for the word MANDATE which I ask you to rephrase it.

(Take note: Hebrew 7:5 “commandment” NKJV rendition has its interlinear proper word study in 1785 [e] entolēn – “ἐντολὴν”. (Strong’s Concordance)

Definition: an injunction, order, command
Usage: an ordinance, injunction, command, law

_____________________________________________

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO QUESTION 7:

Here is how I will rephrase it if I go along with his proper word study whereby, he implied that the term “mandated” should not be linked to God since God is not a board of elders or leaders.

I would simply remove the “mandated” term and replace it with commandment since in his proper word study, it would follow that God did not even mandate the 10% rather, God commanded it (Hebrews 7:5). Apparently, the topic is about “God’s mandate on 10%” which follows that, by the proper word study of my opponent, God did not at all mandate the 10% to begin with rather, God commanded it.

So, since I’m here to prove that God mandate (not command) on 10% as commanded in the bible cannot be done. Well, my opponent actually helped me to prove my case since God cannot mandate the 10% for, after all, He is not an Elders or officials of a legal governing body.

_____________________________________________

Highlights on what happened after Q7.

Here, the Negative side again complains of how the affirmative answer but, this time he is addressing directly the affirmative and the moderator as per the rules of the debate. He seems to be moderating the negative side already.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.34.20 PM

Affirmative response.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.35.24 PM

At this point, the affirmative also request the moderator to settle the matter so as to avoid back and forth arguments.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.39.57 PM

Here, the negative side is seemingly acting like he is the moderator himself addressing directly the affirmative side instead of calling the moderator attention for his objection as per the rule of the debate. It seems the negative side is purposely bypassing the authority of the moderator as he seems to request to change her, because of this, the moderator had responded as below:

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.43.24 PM

Ms. Christine as the moderator decided to be inactive and wait for the two admins to administer the request of Mr. Negative.

Mr. Affirmative highlighted the following;

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.48.09 PM

24 hours had passed and still no response from the other 2 admins to which the negative side requested to moderate. Again, affirmative had messaged the following;

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.50.39 PM

Still, even after 48 hours, the debaters did hear any response from any moderator. It seems the moderators are showing no interest anymore in moderating.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.53.03 PM

For more than 3 days, after repeated attempt to get their response but to no avail so as to cater Mr. Negative request. The affirmative feel like they have reached an impasse and warned that within 12 hours, should no one respond, it would mean that they have no interest in moderating at all, and as such, Mr. affirmative will start to post his rebuttal on Mr. negative answers during the affirmative cross-examination.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 9.59.27 PM

So, 12 hours had passed and still no response. The affirmative started to post his rebuttal.

Check out the next part which is the rebuttal.

To be continued………….

_____________________________________________

To read the format of the debate, click here

To read the Presentations of the debaters, click here

To read the cross examinations of Affirmative to Negative, click here

This entry was posted in God, Jesus Christ, Tithes. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to TITHING DEBATE (NEGATIVE CROSS EXAMINATIONS TO AFFIRMATIVE SIDE) Part 4

  1. Pingback: TITHING DEBATE (THE FORMAT) Part 1 | Bible Exposition (TINK)

  2. Pingback: TITHING DEBATE (PRESENTATIONS) Part 2 | Bible Exposition (TINK)

  3. Pingback: TITHING DEBATE (AFFIRMATIVE CROSS EXAMINATIONS TO NEGATIVE SIDE) Part 3 | Bible Exposition (TINK)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.