Kindly quote where I twisted the word....you don't make baseless allegations without showing where it was said.
Where was the word of God 'twisted' by me?

@ Snowwy,

Kindly respond to my first part of your kweshion and let's look at it together before i explain the second part, of heb 7 and matt 23:23. waiting for you sir.

@goshen, I thought I have. Pls check again, I even copied your post. I also asked you where you saw in the scripture that the 10percent has been removed from tithe.
You are to explain I Cor. 9, along with Heb 7 and Matt 23:23.

^^^
No you have not replied me. Check page 15, previous page. My post (the fourth from the bottom of page 15), I answer your question about Abraham and I tried to answer it in line with 1 Cor 9 you mentioned. Am asking you to review my answer to see what you don't agree with and then i will explain Heb 7 and Matthew 23:23. That's what am saying sir. However, I cannot explain the three, I Cor. 9, along with Heb 7 and Matt 23:23 together. They all have different context sir. I will stay in the context when i interpret them to you. But review my reply to you in previous page, 4th post from the bottom and we progress sir.

Again, you said, where was the ten percent removed. The answer is it wasn't mentioned also in the gospels nor preached by the apostles which makes it free will giving and sacrificial as percentage is no more attached to giving in the NT or preached by the apostles.

goshen360:

Let me start with your definition. One of the things I was taught in the bible school in interpretation of the bible is context and using the scripture to explain scriptures. This is what i will like to do here to teach my understand. Okay.

Tithe is tenth. It means if one has 100 items split into ten parts and bring one part of it right? It is still same thing as saying 10 percentage of a given number of item. We both understand the meaning of tithe and that is not an issue.

Abraham gave tithe to priest Melchizedek. Okay. You and I don't disagree on that but let's consider CONTEXT. Abraham gave tithe to Priest. Which Priest, Melchizedek.

Now let's go back to the story. Gen 14:17 - 24.

Extract from the above verses.

Abraham went to war and had victory.
He met king of Sodom
He met king of Salem who was also a priest, Melchizedek
Abraham gave tenth of the Spoils to Melchizedek
Abraham gave the rest 90% to king of Sodom
Abraham kept nothing except what his servants had eaten

First and in contracts to what tithe preachers teach today. We should tithe from our income. Here we see the items of tithes Abraham did not from his income. Now, let's some little bit of justice here. If someone goes to war and conquer some stuffs, it means those properties becomes his, right. Am sure you agree with me the answer is YES. Now let's use same "common sense" here which is not permitted anyway, but let's allow it. Abraham gave tithe from spoil, not his income but assumed to be his properties after victory so he gave tenth to the King and Priest, Melchizedek AND ALSO GAVE THE 90% TO KING OF SODOM. We will therefore do justify to interpret this context that, assuming it's our income (because the spoils had become Abraham's properties) then we also FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF GIVING AWAY THE 90% AND DON'T KEEP ANYTHING.

We do not have record of God commanding Abraham to do this but let's still "assume" God told Abraham to give the tithe, then we should also come to assume or conclude that same God will say give the 90% and if we interpret this, it will mean the people that stick to tithe (10%) should also give away the remaining (90%) without keeping anything.

Second, you said the israelites also gave tithes to the Levites for their work in the temple. Same way Jesus commanded that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel I Cor.9:13-14. The labourer is worthy of his reward.

You know what? This is where you are RIGHT. And am gonna tell you why. The purpose of the tithe in OT is to CARE FOR THE LEVITES AND THE PRIESTS. Why? Simply because they don't have INHERITANCE AMONG THE PEOPLE. Numbers 18:20-21. Now the levites and priests who MINISTER IN THE TEMPLE ARE ENTITLED TO THE TITHE. This purpose is for PEOPLE NOT FOR THE TEMPLE. Let me show you how that applies today. Today, we the people are the temple and not the building. This is exactly what Apostle Paul brought into the Context of 1 Cor 9:13-14. The purpose of taking care of the people (minister) who minister in the temple HOWEVER THE PERCENTAGE WAS NOT APPLIED TO IT IN THE NT as Paul spoke and I will also tell you why, because the principle changed from the early Christians when giving becomes free will and sacrificial, starting with Acts 4:32.

Let us treat this aspect first before I go further to explain those verses you wanted me to explain, else we will mix stuffs together. Let me see where you have a different view from what I said above.

@goshen, sorry I didn't realise you have posted this.
Like you said, Abraham gave a tenth to the priest who he met when returning from the battle of Sodom.
Suffice to say, he met him ONCE, on HIS WAY, He had ONLY the spoil with him which was now His PROPERTY.

He gave tithe of ALL even though God didn't command it like you said he gave it.

Now did you read the reason why Abraham did not take the rest of the spoil. Please read on where He said he won't take anything of the King of Sodom so the king of sodom will not say he made him rich, yet he allowed his men to take THEIR PORTION of it? Simply, he did not want anything to even do with the King of Sodom and no the king of Sodom did not get 90%. He got what was left after Abrahams men rightly took their own portion of the spoil.

What would you claim Paul meant if he inferred from the OT what those that worked in the temple lived of it and IN THE SAME WAY the Lord commanded that those of the gospel should live of it?
You yourself said it was not mentioned in the NT the percentage yet he quoted the scripture and even called it a right. Read 1 Cor. 9 again. I respect that is what you have drawn from it but the scripture explains itself.

Do you believe that nothing is actually compulsory even to give? If you don't give you don't receive. If you even give to someone grudgingly, its not blessed.
If Paul could be talking to the church at Corinth about his rights as an apostle relating to giving, it meant it was not even compulsory...it can't be forced. If you don't give the tenth to God wilingly it yields nothing.
So freewill giving as you call it applies to all giving not just to tithe.

Acts 4:32 started where people sold land to give to the nrethren and to be shared among all, the apostles inclusive.
Have you sold any property you have and used to blessed all the brethren in your church or laid it up at the feet of your pastor or even the welfare department if you have one telling him you want everyone in church who needs to be given? If not please explain why?
I do not know where you worship but I know the host of people who wait to see pastors due to financial need and they are attended to though they might not be given all they want at that point or they are told to bring one thing or the other to prove their case.

Can we move on now to the remaining scriptures?
I might not respond till some hours from now as I have other things to attend to.

@Pastor Kun,
I am still awaiting response to your false allegation about me...I wonder why the sudden silence.

Snowwy:

@goshen, sorry I didn't realise you have posted this.
Like you said, Abraham gave a tenth to the priest who he met when returning from the battle of Sodom.
Suffice to say, he met him ONCE, on HIS WAY, He had ONLY the spoil with him which was now His PROPERTY.

He gave tithe of ALL even though God didn't command it like you said he gave it.

Now did you read the reason why Abraham did not take the rest of the spoil. Please read on where He said he won't take anything of the King of Sodom so the king of sodom will not say he made him rich, yet he allowed his men to take THEIR PORTION of it? Simply, he did not want anything to even do with the King of Sodom and no the king of Sodom did not get 90%. He got what was left after Abrahams men rightly took their own portion of the spoil.

Let us treat the issues one after the other, if you are not tired and if are tired then we continue tomorrow. Okay.

Let's treat our differences here on Abraham first. My first explanation is under "assumption" right. So if you are I agree God didn't command him and you included two things: that Abraham gave it but not commanded by God and also the reason he gave the rest, which to you is not necessarily 90% cos the servant had taken a certain portion. Will it be justice to interpret thus: ABRAHAM TITHE TO MELCHIZEDEK IS A FREE WILL GIVING NOT COMMANDED BY GOD AND THE REST PERCENTAGE IS ALSO A FREE WILL GIVING.

2. Will it also make sense to interpret here since Abraham gave the rest percentage after the servants took some portion, to king of sodom that for the reason of being that "So that king of Sodom will not say he made Abraham rich". Can we then conclude that tithing or no tithing does make one rich? As we have seen that Abraham was already rich before this tithing to Melchizedek. Gen 13:1-2. Can this be our interpretation? If not, state your accession from this event.

I will explain the rest chapters you gave me. No rush bros,lol. I want make we take one matter after the other sir,lol. I will show you what is hidden in that 1 Cor 9 and Hebrew 7. Make we finish thing one first sir.

@goshen,
You brought up the issues of the various questions I answered. You brought up the issue of Acts and I answered and asked a question...you are yet to respond to that.
If you want to stay on topic, please do. If tou bring up other scripture, please do not expect me not to respond on that as well.

1. Ofcourse, the tithe Abraham gave to Melchisedek was freely given. Does this not show to you that a tenth is part of giving though in this case it is to a priest?

2. Tithing or not tithing makes one rich ofcourse just like taking bribe can make one rich. Does it make one blessed? That is a different thing.

It would be nice to hear this 'hidden' thing in the other scriptures though as a long thread might not receive my input as it should...other things can take up ones time.
If you do not hear from me may be till tomorrow, pls know I am focusing on other stuff.

Snowwy:
@Pastor Kun,
I am still awaiting response to your false allegation about me...I wonder why the sudden silence.

Bros abeg stop evading issues! Which false allegation did I make about you The onus is on you to come out clean say the truth and admit you have been telling lis to justify this tithing fraud.

Snowwy: @goshen,
You brought up the issues of the various questions I answered. You brought up the issue of Acts and I answered and asked a question...you are yet to respond to that.
If you want to stay on topic, please do. If tou bring up other scripture, please do not expect me not to respond on that as well.

1. Ofcourse, the tithe Abraham gave to Melchisedek was freely given. Does this not show to you that a tenth is part of giving though in this case it is to a priest?

2. Tithing or not tithing makes one rich ofcourse just like taking bribe can make one rich. Does it make one blessed? That is a different thing.

It would be nice to hear this 'hidden' thing in the other scriptures though as a long thread might not receive my input as it should...other things can take up ones time. If you do not hear from me may be till tomorrow, pls know I am focusing on other stuff.

So basically and as confirmed from your reply. Tithe does NOT make one rich. You tried to spiritualize issue when you said it doesn't make one blessed but can compare it with bride. Off course we are not talking about bribe now but tithe as you said it's different things. When you spiritualize it, riches relates to materials possession but being blessings relates to spiritual. The point we have both established as you agreed is tithing does not make one rich like Abraham giving all away as it is an example of a free will in this context.

Yes in regards to the Acts and other scriptures i raised, you don't have to talk on them as you pointed. I want us to stay on course. I only mentioned that cos it goes with example of free will giving too as supported in the NT. You also asked if I have personally sold my land? Not at all but have made sacrifice for the gospel and that is what that acts supports also cos it is from my free will to make that sacrifice and does not necessarily have to be a land. That was when I was at OFFA with the RCCG back in my school days.

Okay, I will then give explanation of the Hebrew 7 and 1 Cor 9 in my next post. I am also busy now but I will respond later cos it will take a detailed comment. While you wait for my comment on Heb 7 and 1 Cor 9, should in case you need to talk on the above, do not hesitate.

Pastor Kun:

Bros abeg stop evading issues! Which false allegation did I make about you The onus is on you to come out clean say the truth and admit you have been telling lis to justify this tithing fraud.

As usual Pastor Kun, you don't have anything to say. Yet to lied that I am 'twisting' scripture. Show me where I did and see your response. You have proven your inconsistency yet again and I can see you are just trying to derail the thread.



@goshen,
You asked me that does tithing or not tithing make one rich and I said tithing can make one rich and not tithing can make one rich also.
Why?
Correct me if I am wrong, you stated on this thread that some people are rich that do not tithe didn't you? Ofcourse you are right. There are even stingy folks who are rich as well.
At the same time tithing can make people rich as there are blessings attached as the blessings of the Lord maketh rich and addeth no sorrow.

How did I spiritualise this?
I never said Abraham wasn't rich before tithe and never did the bible, I just answered your question.

You have said tithing is giving hence, there is nothing wrong or abolished in giving tithe, offering, to the poor, to the needy, to family, to brethren etc.

I await your responses on the others.

Snowwy:

As usual Pastor Kun, you don't have anything to say. Yet to lied that I am 'twisting' scripture. Show me where I did and see your response. You have proven your inconsistency yet again and I can see you are just trying to derail the thread.

There is absolutely no way you can justify mandatory tithing in the church today without twisting scripture on several points. You have consistently quoted scripture out of context to justify this tithing scam so you are definitely guilty of the sin of twisting scripture.

Snowwy:
@goshen,
You asked me that does tithing or not tithing make one rich and I said tithing can make one rich and not tithing can make one rich also.
Why?
Correct me if I am wrong, you stated on this thread that some people are rich that do not tithe didn't you? Ofcourse you are right. There are even stingy folks who are rich as well.
At the same time tithing can make people rich as there are blessings attached as the blessings of the Lord maketh rich and addeth no sorrow.

How did I spiritualise this?
I never said Abraham wasn't rich before tithe and never did the bible, I just answered your question.

You have said tithing is giving hence, there is nothing wrong or abolished in giving tithe, offering, to the poor, to the needy, to family, to brethren etc.

I await your responses on the others.

I will still respond to the Heb and I Cor stuff. It will be a little bit lengthy when i reply. I meant you spiritualized issue when you blend riches with being blessed and gave examples or maybe i didn't understand you, just my thought. Of course the riches and blessing or being blessed are different. We are focusing on riches in the subject of Abraham as it relates to tithe, i mean having material things/possession.

The tithing law that was abolished is what i will show you in Hebrews, just in few hours. I have to quickly reply this aspect till I return from my outing. Ok. Brb.

@goshen, my post explains itself...there was nowhere we discussed that it was the tithe that made Abraham rich
You brought up what was not discussed asking me to explain. I only told you to read the reason why Abraham did not take his own portion of the loot...you inferred what was not from it, do you get me?

Like I said I am waiting for you to explain that the Heb.7:18 is talking about tithe being abolished.
I will also hope you stay within context.
Cheers.

@ Snowwy,

1 Cor 9:1-18 is a discourse/teachings on "Rights of a Worker or Labourer in the work of the Lord AND SELF DENIAL TO THESE RIGHTS". You will remember we had a fellowship on this chapter when i raised the issue of salaries for preachers. After that thread, I had to re-visit the subject and be sure am not preaching/teachings something against the will of God. Thereafter, I came to this conclusion below:

Apostle Paul set out to defend his right to eat, drink and other things (v4-6) as commanded by the Lord Jesus. Where and how? Matt 10:10 and Luke 10:7-8 is the answer.

So we see that those who labour for the gospel have the right to live of the gospel as commanded by our Lord Jesus are those things that are freely given to us as we labour in the vineyard as seen in Luke 10:7-8. Like I said earlier, this is what is being transferred from the OT into the NT and we also see Apostle Paul doing same thing here. What is transferred from OT to NT is care and support for the people who ministered at the altar. (v8-9)

How did I come to this conclusion that it is same thing transferred from OT to NT? The answer is in v9-10,

For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

This is where the purpose of tithe from the OT comes into the NT because the tithe was for the PEOPLE THEN NOT THE TEMPLE. However, here, the word TITHE does not appear as a means of support to those who labour in the Lord, neither does it appear as WHAT THE LORD COMMANDED IN MATT 10:10, Luke 10:7-8 (as I try to use the scripture to explain scriptures). I understand your position that since, it was tithe that was being used to support the levites/priests(workers) in OT, so it has to be same TITHE in the NT but I say, you don't jump to that conclusion because we already saw what the LORD COMMANDED HERE, OK. The efforts you should have made was to find out what the Lord commanded but you jumped to conclusion that since it was tithe that was used to care for the workers then, it has to be also tithe in the NT. Such conclusion is wrong sir.

Here we see Apostle Paul calling up OT stuffs to justify a discourse but the same Apostle Paul said we are not justified by the works of the law. However, I love Paul for his balancing discourse in everything he preaches/teaches and let's see this balancing IF THE SAME CHARISMATIC WILL BALANCE AND TAKE AFTER APOSTLE PAUL.

v12
If others are partakers of [this] right over you, [are] we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ.

v15
But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it [would be] better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void.

Here we see the balancing of this discourse. I have a RIGHT TO EAT, DRINK AND OTHER THINGS TO LIVE/LIFE BUT I DO NOT USE THIS RIGHT NEITHER AM I WRITING THIS (EPISTLE/LETTER) SO THAT THESE RIGHTS SHOULD BE DONE TO ME. This is the balancing teachings of this discourse that i see the charismatics just stand on one side that favours them and neglect the other side. If we stay in context of this discourse/teachings/letter/epistle, then it is BY THE SAME FREE WILL OFFERINGS/GIVING THAT COMES TO US AS THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD AS COMMANDED BY THE LORD.

Same Paul now wrote in to same Corinthians in chapter 11 v 1 that, "Imitate me, just as I also [imitate] Christ". We seems to ignore this balancing aspect of Apostle Paul.

[b]In conclusion, this epistle/discourse/letter is NOT written to justify a right (even though i am entitled to it) but rather for US TO SELF DENIAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. v15[/b]Should we receive a free will offerings if given to us as the Lord commanded? YES. Should we sit on one side of this discourse/teachings in 1 Cor 9:1-18 to "justify or demand" a right? NO. We don't demand but accept it "if or when" given to us.

Also, let me share something you might not have considered in the OT to the NT. In the OT, the Levites/Priest DO NOT HAVE INHERITANCE IN THE LAND. This is the purpose of the tithe, to carter for them. Today, minister of the gospel are not like that. They all have one thing or the other which violates the purpose of the tithes. And if we put this in context today, both pastors (if we call them priests of today) and church workers (if we call them levites of today) are all suppose to be paid or receive tithes. Then choirs are to be paid, ushers, sunday school teachers and all of the assisting groups are to be paid or receive tithes as well but you know that is not what is obtained in today's church. Hence, tithe is not the subject of support in this discourse of Paul's teachings.

Let us have fellowship on this chapter first before we go over to Hebrews.

@goshen,
I Cor 9:3 says 'My defense to those who examine me is this:'

First of, some people were examining Paul for one reason or the other. Why? He continues when you read on.

Do you realise that the right to eat and drink was enjoyed by the other apostles as against what Paul and Barnabas enjoyed?
May be you can explain what that right is in light of I Cor. 9:13-14.

That was why he asked if it is only He and Barnabas that had no right to refrain from working? The other apostles were not working...

He goes on to explain that is he saying this as a MERE man or doesn't even the law confirm the fact that he who tends to the flock also enjoys it's milk?

Read on...then he says that the Lord has COMMANDED that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel just like the ministers of old ate of the holy things of the temple.

Is it Rocket science to know what was used to care for ministers in the time of old? You yourself has said tenth is freewill giving or why would you quote the below?

[/quote]

goshen360:

[b]If we stay in context of this discourse/teachings/letter/epistle, then it is BY THE SAME FREE WILL OFFERINGS/GIVING THAT COMES TO US AS THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD AS COMMANDED BY THE LORD.

In conclusion, this epistle/discourse/letter is NOT written to justify a right (even though i am entitled to it) but rather for US TO SELF DENIAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. v15[/b]Should we receive a free will offerings if given to us as the Lord commanded? YES.

Freewill offering is stated in the old testament, why are you Ok with that and not with tithe especially when there is no explicit word 'freewill offering' in the NT? Is part of this self denial not also forfeiting the right to marry? I Cor 9:5.

Paul went on further to say 'we have not used this right'...we (Paul & Barnabas) have not used this right.
Did their not using the right which the other apostles have make it wrong? No? They decided to ENDURE so as in no way hinder the gospel and he did not want anyone to make his boasting void.
The other apostles were teaching the jews who understood the need for caring for the ministers but Paul was speaking to the gentiles who were a continuous work and did not understand this and had to come to that understanding.


Please do not lose sight of the fact that these rights were not only for food & drink but for marriage too. I Cor. 9:5.
Paul and Barnabas also had a right to marry and they did not use this right? Are you now telling me that therefore in following Paul, we should not marry?
Please answer this in light of the fact that they refused their right to this support as well.


Full time ministers have no other work and thus should enjoy this right. Some ministers work today and do not partake in tithes solely for this reason. There are also other people who are full time workers in the ministry that partake as well. I know some churches pay their music ministers and other full time workers in the church. However, they pay those that are called to the full-time work rather than pay an usher just because he/she is not working...the calling has to be there first.

I would advise you to refrain from saying 'a conclusion is wrong' especially since you are yet to provide a better one. It makes it feel like it is only your conclusion that is right.
Paul said ministers of old took sustenance of the holy things of the temple and we know God said the tithe is holy unto Him and it provided food in His house and he had given it to the levites. Paul continued that even so, some versions say in the same way has the Lord commanded...

From this please tell me where my conclusion is wrong.


I would advise you answer all these questions FIRST before we move on. Thanks

@ Snowwy,

Basically, we are saying the same thing when it comes to the point you started in your point from Paul saying, "My defense to those who examine me is this". This is the first part of my discourse or comment to you also. Paul had a right which he "defended" here and that forms the first part of his discourse.

The second part too that is mostly ignored which is the balancing side is what you are now talking against here. I strongly believe as stated that whatever is given to us freely should be received. Our difference here is the perspective from which we are seeing it. I am seeing it from the fact that the LORD gave a commandment to them which i showed you the place Jesus commanded it. Jesus did not commanded from tithe as he, Jesus himself did not teach tithe neither did he teach the Apostles to teach tithe. We both know from the word of God that Jesus and the Apostles all received support and so i stay in that context only and don't go beyond that but you are saying because Paul said even so the Lord commanded that those who work in the temple also partake of the thing of the temple, if this is your argument, then we will come to the conclusion/argument that the things of the temple that is tithe according to you, are not money but crops and animals.

Your question about, "Paul and Barnabas also had a right to marry and they did not use this right? Are you now telling me that therefore in following Paul, we should not marry? Please answer this in light of the fact that they refused their right to this support as well".

As we know, when you mentioned some churches in your reply, of course you also know some churches follow the example of Paul not marrying. That should not be an issue of an example to follow, should it be okay to live by.

What am saying is a striking balance. I confirmed to you that they (we) that does the work of the ministry have the right to SUPPORT and I stay in that context only and only when given or offered to us. Only the levites/priest are "commanded" to have rights to receive tithes and no other tribes.

Brother, if your interpretation is based on the fact that Paul was referring those "who minister in OT feed from the things of the temple" and that refers to the tithe, then Jesus also ministered and would have received tithe since tithe is the things of the temple according to you. Other Apostles that came from another tribe would have received tithes also but they didn't. This is what am trying to let you see that "even so the Lord commanded" was given to them by Jesus in Matt 10:10 and Luke 10: 7-8. Paul was only drawing a pattern from OT which does not necessarily the same tithe since none of them are from levites, Paul cannot mean that as you interpreted it. I want you to think about this area too, only levites and priest must receive tithes. Should it be that same tithe being referred to by Paul according to you, I think even Jesus too would be that first to receive or be supported by tithe. I hope my language is clear now sir?

As you have corrected me many times to refrain from the us of some words, am trying to,lol. At least, you have seen some changes,lol. Anyway, don't mind me on that aspect. You will gradually see changes from time to time as you read my post. We both agree on supports for ministers/ministry and nobody can deny that as it is clear in the word of God. The difference here is, you see support from tithe (as being the way it is provided in the OT and that it is the way the Lord commanded it) but i see it from not necessarily tithe but whatever is given freely to us ministers/ministries as commanded by the Lord in Matt 10:10 and Luke 10:7-8. If am not getting you right, le'me know before we continue sir.

Have I answered you kweshion(s)? I was only able to spot one kweshion sir.

goshen360: @ Snowwy,
The second part too that is mostly ignored which is the balancing side is what you are now talking against here. I strongly believe as stated that whatever is given to us freely should be received. Our difference here is the perspective from which we are seeing it. I am seeing it from the fact that the LORD gave a commandment to them which i showed you the place Jesus commanded it. Jesus did not commanded from tithe as he, Jesus himself did not teach tithe neither did he teach the Apostles to teach tithe. We both know from the word of God that Jesus and the Apostles all received support and so i stay in that context only and don't go beyond that but you are saying because Paul said even so the Lord commanded that those who work in the temple also partake of the thing of the temple, if this is your argument, then we will come to the conclusion/argument that the things of the temple that is tithe according to you, are not money but crops and animals.

If you claim that Jesus saying 'tithe should not be left undone or neglected' as not teaching tithe then I wonder what you inferred from Matt23:23 and Luke 11:42. Especially since he said mercy, faith and the love of God are paramount. You said he was 'under the law' then and we know He was yet to be high priest, why would be entitled to tithe at that time seeing a priesthood was in place? I would advise you don't dabble into the fact that he was referring to the Pharisees only because I will ask you why you are born again (and a host of other things he told the other people apart from the then disciples today) since he was talking to a Pharisee when saying this. So let us leave it at that.
That is why my first question to you on this thread is that is mercy, faith and the love of God done away with along with tithe since it is clearly part of what Jesus said should be done.
Since the things of the temple are crops and animals, was it not obvious it was products of the people's labour. What is the product of your labour? If you are working, at the end of the month, do you receive crops and animals as your reward? By all means, present day farmers can tithe crops if they want to.
The poor people in the OT, were they not left to glean crops in the field or given crops etc as food a lot of the time? In Jesus time, why was there so much emphasis on money? He said go sell and give to poor.
Luke 18 further sees Jesus telling us some who trusted in their self righteousness and he said the Pharisee fasted and gave tithes of all he possessed. That is an example of giving all and not only crops...

Many blessings in the OT has to do with the land yeilding plenty, or the vine yielding her increase,or the tree blossoming, do you claim such blessings?
If you do, are you an agriculturist? Are those blessings meant for farmers only?

goshen360: @ Snowwy,

Your question about, "Paul and Barnabas also had a right to marry and they did not use this right? Are you now telling me that therefore in following Paul, we should not marry? Please answer this in light of the fact that they refused their right to this support as well".

As we know, when you mentioned some churches in your reply, of course you also know some churches follow the example of Paul not marrying. That should not be an issue of an example to follow, should it be okay to live by.

Does their deciding to marry make marriage wrong? If Paul and Barnabas refused to marry or take sustenance, where they wrong? No.
For those who decided to take sustenance and marry, where they wrong, No.

It is obvious therefore that the right of support as commanded by the Lord in the same way with the time of old is not wrong. Therefore as you said, the right to support is also an example of a non-issue as well, should it be ok to live by the use of that right....hope you understand.

goshen360: @ Snowwy,

What am saying is a striking balance. I confirmed to you that they (we) that does the work of the ministry have the right to SUPPORT and I stay in that context only and only when given or offered to us. Only the levites/priest are "commanded" to have rights to receive tithes and no other tribes.

Brother, if your interpretation is based on the fact that Paul was referring those "who minister in OT feed from the things of the temple" and that refers to the tithe, then Jesus also ministered and would have received tithe since tithe is the things of the temple according to you. Other Apostles that came from another tribe would have received tithes also but they didn't. This is what am trying to let you see that "even so the Lord commanded" was given to them by Jesus in Matt 10:10 and Luke 10: 7-8. Paul was only drawing a pattern from OT which does not necessarily the same tithe since none of them are from levites, Paul cannot mean that as you interpreted it. I want you to think about this area too, only levites and priest must receive tithes. Should it be that same tithe being referred to by Paul according to you, I think even Jesus too would be that first to receive or be supported by tithe. I hope my language is clear now sir?

As I said, Jesus was our confirmed high priest after his death since he took up the sins of the world. That is Heb 7 talks about.
As you said, the labourer is worthy of His hire and this was evidenced in the scriptures Paul spoke about in I cor 9. (The soldier, the flock tenderer etc).
Geneis showed where Melchisedek a priest, who was not a levite received tithes and Christ is a priest after the order of him. We will continue in Heb 7 when we get there.
Since Paul was drawing inference from the OT, how can you say he did not mean what I interpreted...what other interpretation would he have meant that he did not draw from at that point and called it a right.

@Goshen, because you chose to draw your own interpretation from it does not mean I should draw the same especially with the stark plain scriptures referring to the OT from almost all of the I Cor. 9.

See I have no issues if you don't see it as plainly stated in scripture, the issue is inferring your own interpretation and calling that of others wrong.
Therefore telling me that 'Paul did not mean what I interpreted' is really surprising. If he didn't mean it as a right referring to OT why did he go this length to explain the OT.
You have drawn your interpretation, please respect that of others especially when the scripture speaks by the Spirit for itself.

Happy Easter and I pray the understanding of Jesus Christ's death for you and for me will yield greater meaning in our lives.

Snowwy:

@Goshen, because you chose to draw your own interpretation from it does not mean I should draw the same especially with the stark plain scriptures referring to the OT from almost all of the I Cor. 9.

See I have no issues if you don't see it as plainly stated in scripture, the issue is inferring your own interpretation and calling that of others wrong. Therefore telling me that 'Paul did not mean what I interpreted' is really surprising. If he didn't mean it as a right referring to OT why did he go this length to explain the OT. You have drawn your interpretation, please respect that of others especially when the scripture speaks by the Spirit for itself. Happy Easter and I pray the understanding of Jesus Christ's death for you and for me will yield greater meaning in our lives.

Okay Oga Snowwy,

I am not in a good mode now as i got angry from someone around me now, not from you or your words. I have heard your talk and I will respect other's interpretation. God will help us. As the scriptures says, "we know in part". I will respect your view/others and not infer mine interpretation on you/others. We all share and partake of the body of Christ. This same issue of interpretation is what causes the different stuffs in the body of Christ. Let us leave like that. Thank you sir. Am still being provoked to anger. Maybe I will come back to talk to you tomorrow. God bless you. Thanks for the fellowship and time all the way.

Pls take it easy. Do not sin or let the sun go down on your anger whoever it may be that angered you.
We celebrate Jesus resurrection today, pls forgive and forget.
Cheers.

Snowwy: @goshen,
He goes on to explain that is he saying this as a MERE man or doesn't even the law confirm the fact that he who tends to the flock also enjoys it's milk?

. . . and it is not a licence for the pastor to go suck the milk out of the female members of the church It's just an analogy.

Snowwy:
Read on...then he says that the Lord has COMMANDED that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel just like the ministers of old ate of the holy things of the temple.

The idea of comparing an NT requirement to an OT practice is not a charge for us to adopt the OT practice, it's most times just a means of providing clarification or better understanding of the message. 'Living of the gospel' does not mean the pastor is entitled to the priestly benefit under the law. It simply mean that those that preach the gospel are also entitled support just like their OT couterparts. The nature of support will be as determined by the giving practice of the early Christians. What were the holy things of the early church? certainly not tithe, it was never mentioned.

1 Corinthians 9:13 (KJV)
13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

What were the holy things of the temple that ministers of old benefited from from?

Numbers 18:8-10 (KJV)
8And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Behold, I also have given thee the charge of mine heave offerings of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel; unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance for ever. 9This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of their's, every meat offering of their's, and every sin offering of their's, and every trespass offering of their's which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons. 10In the most holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it: it shall be holy unto thee.

Leviticus 7:5-10 (KJV)
5And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering. 6Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy. 7As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. 8And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered. 9And all the meat offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying pan, and in the pan, shall be the priest's that offereth it. 10And every meat offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.


If we go by what we read in the old testament, the tithe does not get to the altar. What gets to the altar and given to the priest are offerings like guilt offering, cereal/meat offering, sin offering e.t.c. so, if the pastor is to live of the holy things of the temple/altar, he should be considering the offerings listed above (excluding tithe).

Ziggy:

. . . and it is not a licence for the pastor to go suck the milk out of the female members of the church It's just an analogy.

.

@Zikky na you sabi o if that is what you get as the interpretation of that scripture.

Zikkyy:
The idea of comparing an NT requirement to an OT practice is not a charge for us to adopt the OT practice, it's most times just a means of providing clarification or better understanding of the message. 'Living of the gospel' does not mean the pastor is entitled to the priestly benefit under the law. It simply mean that those that preach the gospel are also entitled support just like their OT couterparts. The nature of support will be as determined by the giving practice of the early Christians. What were the holy things of the early church? certainly not tithe, it was never mentioned.

@Zikky, if you use the word 'ENTITLED' and we are given an inference from the OT, If you decide to make your own conclusions from it...I have no issues.
However if the inference from the OT tells us how the ministers of old lived and later a scripture tells us our High priest is a priest after the order of another priest who himself received tithes, then I don't think tithe being received or given is not having a better understanding of the message. Especially if Jesus said tithe should NOT be left undone.

And I keep saying, the early christians (jews) sold land etc and brought to the apostles feet (Peter) for distribution to all that needed. We were not told the proportion everyone took but the apostles did not lack, they partook of this and we see nowhere being told Peter and other apostles needed as all their needs were supplied. Paul however had to work especially as the gentiles didn't understand as the jews did. Though he mentioned at a point receiving wages of other churches...

Zikkyy:
1 Corinthians 9:13 (KJV)
13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

What were the holy things of the temple that ministers of old benefited from from?
If we go by what we read in the old testament, the tithe does not get to the altar. What gets to the altar and given to the priest are offerings like guilt offering, cereal/meat offering, sin offering e.t.c. so, if the pastor is to live of the holy things of the temple/altar, he should be considering the offerings listed above (excluding tithe).

That scriptures says the ministers live of the things of the temple. And also the things of the altar. It is two fold.
You just mentioned the things of the altar which yourself know do not apply anymmore as Jesus has taken away the need for a guilt offering, sin offering, trespass offering, and other oblations. Besides the tithes, the priests were entitled to portions of these sin offerings, tresspass offerings and other oblations which were brought to the altar by the people- which don't apply.

I am talking about ALL the tenth which God said is holy unto Him_Lev 18:21, Lev.27:30, II Chron.31:4-5.

The tithes were received into the store house of the temple? II Chron.31:11-12, Mal.3:10 says this. There were chambers in the house of the Lord for this.

So the holy things of the temple has tithe and they are stored in the storehouse/chambers in the temple. Guess bring all the tithes into the storehouse rings a bell now...

@snowwy,

a scripture tells us our High priest is a priest after the order of another priest who himself received tithes, then I don't think tithe being received or given is not having a better understanding of the message.

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN TOLD TO DESIST FROM USING 'AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIEDECK' WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POINT ON THE TITHE,NEITHER DOES IT EMPOWER YOU ANY EXTRA RIGHT OUTSIDE THE NULIFICATION OF THE LEVI PRIESTHOOD ON THE CROSS.
YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT CHRIST PRIESTHOOD 'AFTER THE ORDER'MEANS WILL BE SIMILAR;'LIKE FOR LIKE' OR 'RESEMBLE'THAT OF MELCHIDEDECH WHO DOUBLED AS KING-PRIEST,SAME WAY JESUS PRIESTHOOD (after the order)WILL 'RESEMBLE' MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD,AND IT HAPPENED WHEN JESUS WAS DECLARED 'KING OF KINGS'AND A 'PRIEST FOREVER',ANYTHING OUTSIDE THIS FORMULATED AS A 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHIZEDECK'THAT EMPOWERS FRAUD IS TOTALLY NOT SUPPORTED IN THE BIBLE,
BUT WAS CONCUCTED USING 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'

Especially if Jesus said tithe should NOT be left undone.

SNOWWY, ARE YOU A JEW? DO YOU YOU RECEIVE YOUR OWN GRACE BEING A JEW? SO WHEN JESUS WAS CASTING WOE TO PHARISEES FOR PAYING TITHES,DOES IT APPLY TO YOU WHO IS NOT A JEW? AND IT ENDED AFTER JESUS DEATH. 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'.

Snowwy:
However if the inference from the OT tells us how the ministers of old lived and later a scripture tells us our High priest is a priest after the order of another priest who himself received tithes, then I don't think tithe being received or given is not having a better understanding of the message. Especially if Jesus said tithe should NOT be left undone.

You are the one thinking tithe. If you are going to interpret a bible verse as referring to or talking about tithe, the bible verse should truly be talking about tithe. So when you refer to that particular verse to substantiate the remittance of a tenth of your income to the church, the verse should be support your claim.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is what was the purpose of that verse? what was Paul's concern in that chapter? was it about support/benefit for those that preach the gospel or was it about the nature of the support/benefit? Was Paul really concerned bout the nature of the support? Reading from the first verse, you can tell the nature of pastoral support was never an issue. I still don't understand how can you interpret that verse to imply that Paul was talking about supporting pastors with tithe.

Snowwy:
However if the inference from the OT tells us how the ministers of old lived. . . .

The inference from the OT tells us how the ministers of old lived, but it did not tell us to also live exactly as the ministers of old lived. If those that minister about holy things live of the things of the temple and they that wait at the altar are partake of the altar, so also those that proclaim the gospel should make their living from the gospel. How does making your living from the gospel equate to living of the things of the temple or partaking of the offerings at the altar?

Snowwy:
Besides the tithes, the priests were entitled to portions of these sin offerings, tresspass offerings and other oblations which were brought to the altar by the people- which don't apply.

You agree some offerings don't apply abi? Yet Paul made reference to them. If Paul had just the things of the temple in mind, that verse would have gone like this:

1Co 9:13-14 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple?. . . . Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

There was no need to refer to the things of the altar if he did not want you to partake of the altar. So question for you; if the things of the altar don't apply anymore, why did Paul refer to the things of the altar? i know you will avoid this question, but it something for you to think about.

BERNIMOORE: @snowwy,

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN TOLD TO DESIST FROM USING 'AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIEDECK' WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POINT ON THE TITHE,NEITHER DOES IT EMPOWER YOU ANY EXTRA RIGHT OUTSIDE THE NULIFICATION OF THE LEVI PRIESTHOOD ON THE CROSS.
YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT CHRIST PRIESTHOOD 'AFTER THE ORDER'MEANS WILL BE SIMILAR;'LIKE FOR LIKE' OR 'RESEMBLE'THAT OF MELCHIDEDECH WHO DOUBLED AS KING-PRIEST,SAME WAY JESUS PRIESTHOOD (after the order)WILL 'RESEMBLE' MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD,AND IT HAPPENED WHEN JESUS WAS DECLARED 'KING OF KINGS'AND A 'PRIEST FOREVER',ANYTHING OUTSIDE THIS FORMULATED AS A 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHIZEDECK'THAT EMPOWERS FRAUD IS TOTALLY NOT SUPPORTED IN THE BIBLE,
BUT WAS CONCUCTED USING 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'

i think you are talking to a brick wall. You are talking to people that don't understand what it means when they say Christ took over a priestly office previously occupied or vacated by a man. They still don't understand that their view of Melchi's priesthood (office) indicates one that is sustained by succession. i.e. from Melchi to Jesus. Well, in a ranch/farm land where the flock refused to go out in search of lush meadow but rather wait and feed on the sh.it poor quality feeds the equally lazy and greedy shepherd brings in, what you get is malnourished flock

BERNIMOORE: @snowwy,

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN TOLD TO DESIST FROM USING 'AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIEDECK' WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POINT ON THE TITHE,NEITHER DOES IT EMPOWER YOU ANY EXTRA RIGHT OUTSIDE THE NULIFICATION OF THE LEVI PRIESTHOOD ON THE CROSS.
YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT CHRIST PRIESTHOOD 'AFTER THE ORDER'MEANS WILL BE SIMILAR;'LIKE FOR LIKE' OR 'RESEMBLE'THAT OF MELCHIDEDECH WHO DOUBLED AS KING-PRIEST,SAME WAY JESUS PRIESTHOOD (after the order)WILL 'RESEMBLE' MELCHIZEDECK PRIESTHOOD,AND IT HAPPENED WHEN JESUS WAS DECLARED 'KING OF KINGS'AND A 'PRIEST FOREVER',ANYTHING OUTSIDE THIS FORMULATED AS A 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHIZEDECK'THAT EMPOWERS FRAUD IS TOTALLY NOT SUPPORTED IN THE BIBLE,
BUT WAS CONCUCTED USING 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'

SNOWWY, ARE YOU A JEW? DO YOU YOU RECEIVE YOUR OWN GRACE BEING A JEW? SO WHEN JESUS WAS CASTING WOE TO PHARISEES FOR PAYING TITHES,DOES IT APPLY TO YOU WHO IS NOT A JEW? AND IT ENDED AFTER JESUS DEATH. 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'.

I wonder why you are going hot under the collar especially when the bible said 'after the order of'.
I wonder what right you have to tell me I should not use it...you mean I should not use the word of God because it is an issue for you?

Christ priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek:

Hebrews 7:17 KJV
' 17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.'

Melchisedec received tithes, Christ's priesthood is in the order of Melchisedecs, Christ says do not neglect to tithe.
Please if this does not mean anything to you, let it be, calling this a fraud is really unfortunate for you.


If you have an issue with that verse why don't you take it up with God rather than come ranting over nothing.
The scripture is plainly stated.


So I have to be a jew to follow the word of God. Why did he cast the woe? Was it not stated why he cast the woe? Why are you so angry over nothing.
Didn't Jesus cast woe on the lawyers, even Paul said Woe is me if I preach not the gospel.
If you look at why the woe was spoken then you will understanbd but you keep looking at the letter.

If Jesus said have mercy, show faith and leave not undone Tithe why are you so angry at tithe?
Was it not you trying to explain to me 'under the law mercy' and 'under grace mercy'.
You are funny o. [color=#990000][/color]

Zikkyy:

You are the one thinking tithe. If you are going to interpret a bible verse as referring to or talking about tithe, the bible verse should truly be talking about tithe. So when you refer to that particular verse to substantiate the remittance of a tenth of your income to the church, the verse should be support your claim.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is what was the purpose of that verse? what was Paul's concern in that chapter? was it about support/benefit for those that preach the gospel or was it about the nature of the support/benefit? Was Paul really concerned bout the nature of the support? Reading from the first verse, you can tell the nature of pastoral support was never an issue. I still don't understand how can you interpret that verse to imply that Paul was talking about supporting pastors with tithe.



The inference from the OT tells us how the ministers of old lived, but it did not tell us to also live exactly as the ministers of old lived. If those that minister about holy things live of the things of the temple and they that wait at the altar are partake of the altar, so also those that proclaim the gospel should make their living from the gospel. How does making your living from the gospel equate to living of the things of the temple or partaking of the offerings at the altar?

@Zikky, the nature of pastoral support was never an issue, it is you and the others making an issue over it.
The scripture is there as plainly written for all yet you ask me why my interpretation is what it is? You are still asking me why I interprete that as the ministers of old lived of the temple, so has the Lord commanded that those that preach the gospel should live of it.

Well you are yet to provide me with the reason why you should interprete it differently. Simple.

[/i][i]

Zikkyy:

You agree some offerings don't apply abi? Yet Paul made reference to them. If Paul had just the things of the temple in mind, that verse would have gone like this:

1Co 9:13-14 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple?. . . . Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

There was no need to refer to the things of the altar if he did not want you to partake of the altar. So question for you; if the things of the altar don't apply anymore, why did Paul refer to the things of the altar? i know you will avoid this question, but it something for you to think about.

Yes I said some offerings do not apply and that is what I explained.

There were other offerings of the altar that were applicable like thanksgiving offerings and other gifts. That I know you know of...Even Matthew 5:23 is a good example.
The ministers also partook of this.

I wonder why you said I would avoid the question, except it's something you would do and thus expect others to follow suit. *smh*

Do you guys get some kind of joy/fulfillment from arguing about tithes? You've been saying the same or less than for more than four years now, most of you. Na wa o.

I have been asking and no one has answered, even goshen360.
If Jesus said have mercy, faith and love of God and do not neglect to tithe, why do those against tithe have an issue with tithe and are silent on mercy, faith and love.
If a tenth is now a problem, is it not obvious the hypocrisy of those saying give, give, give but do not give a tenth?
Not forgetting the fact that the tithe is not the only giving being done.

Snowwy:
@Zikky, the nature of pastoral support was never an issue, it is you and the others making an issue over it.

Where! when! How? My intervention on this thread has to do with your interpretation of 1 Co. 9:13-14, nothing more.

Snowwy:
The scripture is there as plainly written for all yet you ask me why my interpretation is what it is? You are still asking me why I interprete that as the ministers of old lived of the temple, so has the Lord commanded that those that preach the gospel should live of it.

Well you are yet to provide me with the reason why you should interprete it differently. Simple.

You've spiced up that particular verse and delivered something quite different from that of Paul. Check out the quotes below; one from the bible and one from the gospel according to Snowwy see if you can spot the difference

1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel

Vs. gospel according to Snowwy:

1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the things of the Jewish temple and partake of the altar chop-chop.

Zikkyy:

Where! when! How? My intervention on this thread has to do with your interpretation of 1 Co. 9:13-14, nothing more.



You've spiced up that particular verse and delivered something quite different from that of Paul. Check out the quotes below; one from the bible and one from the gospel according to Snowwy see if you can spot the difference

1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel

Vs. gospel according to Snowwy:

1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the things of the Jewish temple and partake of the altar chop-chop.

@Zikky, the scripture explains itself as simply as it should.

'Even so' and some scriptures say 'in the same way' has the Lord ordained that those who preach the gospel...'
And I have explained.


Jesus said tithe (it is used for the ministers) should not be neglected, Paul spoke basically on the law throughout that verse, he talked about the right to eat and drink without working, and if it was wrong to reap our material things since he has sowed spiritual things. He took wages from churches and yet you say it is my gospel.
As I have said earlier, you are yet to prove to me why you took me on...but since you have not offered any better explanation, let it be.
Cheers and do have a great day.


@goshen360,
We still have things to complete o except you are no longer interested in telling me how Heb 7:18 annuls tithe and Matt23:23 commends mercy, faith etc and condemns tithe.