Snowwy: [/i][i]
There were other offerings of the altar that were applicable like thanksgiving offerings and other gifts.

Do you know what altars are used for? I know of two altars in the OT; the altar of burnt offering and the altar of incense (for burning incense ). So, what are talking about? What burnt offering is still applicable? Let's see how you dribble your way out of this one I hope you will not run away this time

Snowwy: [/i][i]
Even Matthew 5:23 is a good example.

You could not find as a verse in the whole of the OT, you had to visit the book of Mathew Don't tell me you finally agreed with goshen360 that Jesus lived under the law Anyways all i need from you is the list of burnt offerings that are still applicable, chikenna

Maybe you can also take some time to describe this thankgiving offering you are talking about, cos i still don't understand it

Zikkyy:

Do you know what altars are used for? I know of two altars in the OT; the altar of burnt offering and the altar of incense (for burning incense ). So, what are talking about? What burnt offering is still applicable? Let's see how you dribble your way out of this one I hope you will not run away this time



You could not find as a verse in the whole of the OT, you had to visit the book of Mathew Don't tell me you finally agreed with goshen360 that Jesus lived under the law Anyways all i need from you is the list of burnt offerings that are still applicable, chikenna

Maybe you can also take some time to describe this thankgiving offering you are talking about, cos i still don't understand it

Lol, thanks for not dissapointing me as I knew you would try to latch unto that.
Read Lev. 2:1-3; Lev 6:14-17
Go read it up, the grain offering was a voluntary offering of worship and recognition of God's goodness of the 5 offerings given at the altar in Moses time.

Lol at dribbling, you have nitpicked and I have answered you enough. I was holding this unless you asked and you have.
Therefore, I think I am done here.

Image123: 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.

Well the rogues and charlatans preaching tithes to defraud believers haven't stopped
So why should we stop speaking the truth.

Snowwy: 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.

Let's even assume Jesus was not referring to those under the law in that passage, can you honestly say that the type of tithes Jesus was refering to(agricultural produce) is the same as the fraudulent version(money) preached today?

Snowwy:

@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.

Hi Brother Snowwy,

Am sorry for the delay. Well, I have found out and come to conclude that since we have issues based on our interpretation, we keep saying the same as Image123 had pointed. This should be us as Christians. When I interpret scriptures using scriptures, you accused me of wanting to impose my "own" interpretation on others. But you forget that we are both sharing "our" knowledge. In that case, I don't so much enjoy too long argument especially when one party doesn't want to see from the perspective of the other party. Hence, I come to the conclusion, that, Okay, believe and practice what you know and understand because we "know" in parts but when the perfect comes, our knowing in parts shall be done away with.

Back to Matthew 23:23. As I have always said, context is the core heart of bible interpretation. Context means the whole before you can interpret a verse. When we take heart in pulling up just a verse and sit on the interpretation, it doesn't do us any good. I was taught this is my bible school as mentioned earlier.

Straight to point sir, when we read Matthew 23 from beginning and interpret verse 23 in the whole context, then it will be clear. Jesus already told HIS DISCIPLES AND THE MULTITUDES, which is the group we fall into NOT TO DO ACCORDING TO THE WORKS OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, v1-3. Then Jesus went ahead casting many "woes" on them from verse 13 through 29. When we pick only this verse 23 and sit on it just because the word, tithe appeared therein and say, Jesus justified tithing, then we are not rightly dividing the word of truth.

Matt 23:23.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier [matters] of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Jesus cast woe on them for tithing hypocritically, just like other woes. The Pharisees were hypocrites concerning tithing. Meaning, they tithed at the expense of mercy, justice and faith which are the "weightier matters" of the law, than tithing. Their hypocrisy "might" not have been "woe" should they as "teachers of the law" had exalted the weightier matters of the law than tithing. That was why the following statement came, "These (mercy, justice and faith) you ought to have done, without leaving the others (tithing of mint, anise and cummin) undone. I am yet to read a passage of the scriptures that says, tithe I (God) desires but I have read Mercy/justice have I (God) desires. I have not read by tithe, it is impossible to please God, but I have read without faith, it is impossible to please God. IT IS THE PHARISEES AND SCRIBES THAT TITHE IN THIS VERSE, NOT THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST NOR CHRIST HIMSELF.

Jesus was telling the scribes and Pharisees that judgment, mercy and faith” are more important “matters of the law” than was tithing. Why? Because judgment, mercy and faith are all moral principles and part of God’s eternal character while tithing was merely a ceremonial statute, or ordinance, of the Law which was of lesser importance (not as weighty). Jesus was born into the Jewish law, lived the law fulfilled the law. It is very clear he cannot condemn the law, even that of tithing at this time. The context of Matthew to John are still of the OT. One of the works of the Pharisee here is tithe, i submit to you that Jesus already told his disciples not to do according to their works.

“These you ought to have done, without leaving the other undone.” Again I have never heard of a church which required its members to bring tithes “of mint and anise and cumin” and demand that they “ought to have been done” so in obedience to Jesus’ command in Matthew 23:23. In context, the Pharisees “ought to have done
so” because, as interpreters of the Law, they were the ones who had exaggerated the Law to include counting small spice seeds (study meaning of mint, anise and cumin). If this verse is supposed to be interpreted as Jesus’ command for Christians to tithe money (which the text does not clearly state) then it should also be interpreted as Jesus’ command for the church to tithe garden spices according to the Law (which the text does clearly state). Yet approximately 1600 years after the tithe was first limited to only food products this verse still limits the tithe to food products in Jesus’ time. The Law had not changed (Lev. 27:30-34). Therefore, contrary to our contemporary re-defi nition, tithes could come from grains of wheat, but not from grains of gold!

I had something in mind to talk to you about but I kept forgetting about it. The other day, you mentioned that those of us who don't like to tithe are stingy and looking for a way not to give and yet we support giving. Well, I say that, that statement is not only false but it is also judgmental. It is not a place you go at all. You can judge people's action, that is after an action had being committed but not people's motive. I will only speak for myself here as I can only mention things I have done into the church of God even when I used to tithe and still give sacrificially. But now, I don't just believe in tithing anymore but I still give.

I will explain Heb 7 verse by verse few minutes from now and post it thereafter.

@goshen360,
I do not like an argument either, all I was trying to do was hear you out on your views especially since you made it judgemental.
I never said those that don't tithe are stingy...please quote me in those 'exact words'.

You are right that Jesus said the people should not do according to the works of the pharisees and these works you know were majorly hypocritical and he told them why they shouldn't do it. He however said they should do as they say. Matt 23:3-4

He said they tell the peoole to do but they themselves don't do. They lay heavy burdens on people without lifting a finger to help.

Jesus himself affirmed that unless their righteousness exceeded that of the pharisees, they would in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:20.

It is obvious Jesus was telling the people to not do all the hypocritical acts of the Pharisees. They had behavioural issues, that was the problem. The righteous REQUIREMENTS of the law is paramount and that is what we can do through Christ. Romans 8:4

That is what I have been trying to say since.

The pharisees did not tithe hypocritically, they were hypocrites. The law was right but they just had a way to make it seem what it was not.

I have explained all about what is tithed in previous posts, please go back and look at it.

Tithing did not have dispensation just like giving offering. This was given before the law and done in faith which is the way it is to be done today since everything we should do should be of faith in the first place...giving and the other things as well.
Mercy & faith were all before the law as well.


You have the belief not to tithe, fine...however don't make an issue for those who do...that is it.
We can discuss when you are ready....what about Heb 7?

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

I agree with this. You guys tend to complicate it by adding curry & salt.

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

If i tell you that palace jesters in the days of our forefathers got paid for their effort and then add that "in the same way", i expect comedians like basket mouth to also receive payment anytime he is invited to entertain a traditional ruler. Do you honestly believe, it will be correct to interpret my statement as saying basket mouth should be paid with cowries? Is the mode of payment my concern or the need for the comedian to receive a just wage?

Snowwy:
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.

You've said it the theme was about receiving wages for effort. So what's is this talk that the verse is saying pastors should be supported with tithe?

@goshen,
Please make your post as concise as you can especially as we have discussed at length on tithe already.
Besides note than the main scripture interpretation that is in contention is Heb.7:18 which you have claimed tells us the what is annulled there is tithe.
Thanks.

Snowwy:
Read Lev. 2:1-3; Lev 6:14-17
Go read it up, the grain offering was a voluntary offering of worship and recognition of God's goodness of the 5 offerings given at the altar in Moses time.

I am posting Lev. 2:2 here

2And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:

and Lev. 6:15

15And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD.

You still don't get it. Are you saying burnt (grain) offerings is still applicable So we can still take our cereal/meat to the church and burn it on the pulpit 'for a sweet savour unto the Lord I told you it will be difficult for you to dribble your way out of this one

Snowwy:
I have answered you enough. I was holding this unless you asked and you have.
Therefore, I think I am done here.

com'on Snowwy, you can't be doing this to your good friend how can you be stepping aside at this crucial stage of the discussion? It's not fair you know

Snowwy: @goshen,
Please make your post as concise as you can especially as we have discussed at length on tithe already.
Besides note than the main scripture interpretation that is in contention is Heb.7:18 which you have claimed tells us the what is annulled there is tithe.
Thanks.

My explanation might be lengthy because you don't expect me to root a verse and just explain it. I have to deal with everything. Let me try quote where you said people who don't tithe are stingy if i can still get it.

goshen360:

My explanation might be lengthy because you don't expect me to root a verse and just explain it. I have to deal with everything. Let me try quote where you said people who don't tithe are stingy if i can still get it.

@goshen, I am not expecting you root for a verse...I said just make it concise...please by all means try quote me.

Zikkyy:
com'on Snowwy, you can't be doing this to your good friend how can you be stepping aside at this crucial stage of the discussion? It's not fair you know

I can see you are very sneaky. I have said I think I am done explaining to you...you should have posted the whole verses I quoted and see how it relates to partaking of things of the altar which was what we were discussing.

I therefore am yet to get the humour in taking a handful from the offering by the offeror as burnt offering and the rest (the largest part) that is unburnt is given to the priests as meat.

Besides it's not like it makes any difference...I can see this is nothing but a game to you. Guess the word is the one dribbling you.

Snowwy:

Under the law, people had freewill offering they gave as well and even a number of scriptures in the OT quote so that 'the people gave freely and were very happy to give'. Therefore giving in the NT is not some new commanment that was not done already in the OT. Infact giving IN PROPORTION to how you have prospered doesn't mean give what you feel like. If the people in te OT gave so much, we under grace should give better. Therefore for people who say 'tithe' is a burden really mean they cannot actually give up to a tenth of how God has blessed them. That is the simple truth else they will not come up here to say tithe is a burden.

@ Snowwy, What do you mean by the highlighted statement sir? And besides, I disagree with you that NT believers should give much more than the OT. We have principles guiding our giving in the NT, now according to the law.

goshen360:

@ Snowwy, What do you mean by the highlighted statement sir? And besides, I disagree with you that NT believers should give much more than the OT. We have principles guiding our giving in the NT, now according to the law.

Is that where I 'quoted' that people that do not tithe are stingy? I thought that was what you went to look for.


@goshen, was it not your very self that quoted Acts 4:32 as the new guide to giving in the NT.
How come all of a sudden you say that you do not agree with the NT believers giving more than OT.
People that sold lands and houses...not even as a matter of the law.
Do you think I am talking of giving more in terms of amount or in terms of proportion.

The principles of giving you mentioned is he that
soweth sparingly will reap sparingly, the measure you give is what you will be given, give as the Lord has prospered you and in all this still give with a cheerful heart.
What you said above has just proved again that those who say do not tithe do not give as much as those that do.(Proportional to what they have of course) just like Mark 12:41-42.

Zikkyy:

You still don't get it. Are you saying burnt (grain) offerings is still applicable So we can still take our cereal/meat to the church and burn it on the pulpit 'for a sweet savour unto the Lord I told you it will be difficult for you to dribble your way out of this one

I actually re-read this an laughed.
Yeah, incase you have not read up to that part in your bible, you do not need to burn anything as offering to God now...just give it. Read Paul in Phil 4:18:

'But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.'

@ Snowwy,

Background Study to Hebrews chapter 7

This chapter is not primarily a discussion of tithing yet, it draws heavily from Numbers 18, which is the ordinance establishing the priesthood and tithing. It contrasts the mortal Aaronic priesthood, which was partially sustained by tithing principles, with Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood, which is eternal and is sustained by grace principles of the unlimited eternal power of God.

The Root of the Problem in Jerusalem

As a historical fact, most Jewish Christians in Jerusalem never did abandon the Mosaic Law; they later established their own Christian sect, and rejected Paul as a heretic. The full impact of the meaning and shift of the gospel away from the Mosaic Law NEVER did come to many Jewish Christians. Acts 21:17-26 is crucial to understand for the context of Hebrews. Concerning tithing, almost 40 years after Calvary, there is no legitimate reason to believe that Jewish Christians had ever ceased paying tithes TO THEIR TEMPLE SYSTEM. In fact, history records that these Jewish Christians continued to observe the law’s holy days, feasts, rituals and continued to honor the high priest. Galatians 4:10 reveals what they had taught that church. Therefore, it is also logical to assume that they, as obedient Jews, also felt obligated to keep on paying tithes, to the Levitical system.

The Problem the Letter tends to Solve

It was essential for the writer of Hebrews to convince the church in Jerusalem that their current earthly city of Jerusalem with its temple, high priesthood, sacrifices and support structure were no longer a necessary part of God’s plan for the church. They must immediately break away from their immature faith in, and mistaken dependence upon, the city of Jerusalem, the temple and the high priesthood. Otherwise, when all of these soon disappeared, within a few years at most, their spiritual lives would suffer severe devastation.

In order to break this connection, the Jewish Christians must stop going to the temple for festivals, vows and sacrifices. They must also immediately stop accepting the Levitical high priesthood as legitimate and stop paying tithes to support the system. The careful wording of the letter of Hebrews was necessary because of the inaccurate theology of the Jewish Christians. Again, since they still accepted the legitimacy of the Jewish temple and priesthood, they must have also continued to pay their law-commanded tithes to it. Thus tithing plays an important part in the dismantling of the Jewish priesthood in Hebrews chapter 7, hence it was mentioned in the letter of the writer.

Christ’s High-Priesthood and Believer’s Priesthood Solves the Problem

Jesus Christ is presented in the Letter to the Hebrews as the answer to all of their imminent problems. “In Christ” the believer has a better country, a better city, a better sanctuary, a better high priesthood, a better priesthood, better sacrifices and consequently, a better financial support system. The better country, city and
sanctuary is heavenly for the church and believers. The better high priest is Christ. The better priests are all believers (not pastor-teachers). The better sacrifices from believers are those of praise and thanksgiving. The better financial system is grace giving motivated by love instead of fear and law. Only by understanding these truths could the Jewish Christian survive the culture shock which occurred after A.D. 70. The Jewish Christians simply did not still understand that, the temple of God had changed from being a physical building to believers as the temple and hence, all laws/ordinances to the physical temple are no longer required.

Summary of Hebrew 7

I wanted to explain verse by verse but I thought of summarizing it because of what you said that I should be concise.

Melchizedek is a king and a Priest. In Israel, no king can be a priest at the same time but God used this mysterious king and priest to show us a type of Christ in the fulfillment that he was a king and also a priest, not that died in the case of Melchizedek but that lived forever. This is what Hebrews writer meant with the phrase, after the order of Melchizedek.

Melchizedek not having father, mother or genealogy doesn’t mean he is Christ for we know Christ is the seed of a woman and had genealogy. This is the fact that the genealogies of Melchizedek was omitted and not known. This is the reason why the priesthood of Christ was patterned after his priesthood, in such that Christ lived forever and that Christ became a high priest by oats.

We also see that the Levites though they were not yet born at the time of the event Melchizedek met Abraham but are in the loins of Abraham so indirectly they paid tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham. Notice here, it is the Levites who paid tithe in Abraham but we are kings and priests as believers. When Levites also paid tithes in Abraham, it means if the Abraham tithe is abolished or changed then the Levitical tithe is also changed or abolished.

“Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

For [it is] evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood” v 11-14

“Therefore” begins drawing conclusions from the evidence presented in verses 4-10, which began with “now consider.” On the basis of the Levitical priesthood Israel “received the law,” that is, all of the Mosaic Law! Since this is a discussion of tithing, common sense teaches that “the law” must also include tithing. A compound Greek noun-verb here means that the law was “legislated” and “enacted” through the priests. After being initiated by God, the “legislated” law of tithing and other offerings provided for the very existence of the Levitical priesthood, and, in turn, the Levitical priesthood gave the whole law to Israel.

“Being changed” begins this Greek sentence for emphasis. The Greek word, me-ta-ti-the-me-nees, is a present passive participle. It is a metamorphosis, a transposition, a change from one to another (Strong’s 3346). As used in Scripture, it means a great change. The word describes Jacob’s bones moving from Egypt to Canaan (Acts 7:16), the Galatians’ apostasy from the gospel (Gal. 1:6), Enoch’s translation (Heb. 11:5) and apostates (Jude 4). The following verses make it clear that this great “change” in the priesthood was its total abolishment and replacement.

“A change also of the law.” The instant that Christ died, “the Levitical priesthood” was changed by being abolished. The veil in the temple was ripped open and the Passover lamb’s blood was replaced by Christ’s blood. The result changed the history of the world! The high priesthood of Aaron was replaced by the Melchizedek high priesthood of Jesus Christ and the regular priesthood of the other priests was replaced by the New Covenant doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers.” cf: See 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:9.

Exactly what was “changed”? The law or ordinance, which had established the Levitical priesthood especially the primary law of tithing. Neither the change in the high priesthood nor the changes in the regular priesthood were taught in the Mosaic Law.

Conclusion, if the Levitical ordinances were done through Abraham at the time he met Melchizedek, and these same ordinances are CHANGED, how do we still keep these ordinances with respect to tithing alone? If we now have a high priest from the tribe of Judah, what is the need for tithing? Any change in the priesthood itself would make necessary changes in all the laws governing and supporting the priesthood, especially tithing. After the order of Melchizedek for Jesus is being a king and a priest that lived forever by the oath of God. Abraham paid tithes of spoils which is contrary to what the tithe preachers teach and he, Abraham also gave the rest to king of Sodom which keeping anything to himself.

Snowwy:
I can see you are very sneaky.

oh com'on, this is not a fair comment i think my motive was clear enough, there was nothing to hide. I did not deviate from issue i raised in my initial (first) post, so i don't see how you can say am sneaky

Snowwy:
I can see this is nothing but a game to you.

No, not a game. Having fun does not make it a game, and it does not imply my post should not be taken seriously. I do my best to enjoy everything i do, that way i don't end up looking older than my age of course this is not achieved 100% of the time, but i do my best. You should try it sometime, it's good for your health

Snowwy:
'But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.'

Underlying this statement is the fact that things have changed, we've moved on (or away) from the way things were done in the OT

@goshen,
First of, I had thought we were speaking based on the bible. Suddenly you start giving me a history lesson...well I picked out the scriptures we were dealing with:

Tithe was NOT and I repeat NOT what established the Levitical priesthood. Where did you ever get that from?
God chose the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons (who actually were also Levites) to do service of the tabernacle and to make atonement for the children of Israel so there will be no plague among the children of Israel.when they came nigh the sactuary.

He did this because he did not want to take the firstborn of Israel (Reuben) which were already consecrated to him as holy.
Please read Numbers 8:14-26.

They were to make atonement for the children of Israel...that there may be NO PLAGUE among them when they came near the sactuary. It was this duty that made them stand to make the children of Israel perfect since they atoned for them.
Nothing unholy could come near God as such this is the perfection being talked about.

Therefore you can see how your anology that tithe established the levitical priesthood falls like a pack of cards.

The chapter says that Melchisedek was so great that even the Levites yet to be born paid tithes in him...it never said the paying of the tithe abolished Abraham's tithe haba...stop putting your own in it now.


Therefore if the levitical priesthood was what atoned for the sins of the people to make them perfect, what need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchisedek and not after Aaron.

Now read Heb7:15-16
Jesus was made not after the law of the commandment, that Levites should be used as 'atoners' of the children of Israel to make them perfect, but after the power of an ENDLESS LIFE.

That is why the commandment going before was annulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof...for that law made nothing perfect except when Christ emerged to bring in a better hope.

Read on please and end at verse 28, for the law made men high priests with infirmity but the word of oath maketh the Son consecrated forever more.

@goshen, please that is what the scripture was talking about, the change and reason for the change of the priesthood and not disannulling 'giving a tenth' (of all things to annul) because of its unprofitableness and weakness.
(Edited).

Zikkyy:

Underlying this statement is the fact that things have changed, we've moved on (or away) from the way things were done in the OT

Thanks for the advice of humor...very true.
A merry heart and the joy of the Lord is our strength.

If that is what you have as come-back after all said and done by you about me running away and all. Then so be it. Lol. I am just surprised this is all you have to offer....things have changed and moved on...yeah Zikky's advise. I have made my points from the word and have adequate backing...that is what I abide by.
Cheers.

Snowwy: @goshen,
I am just surprised this is all you have to offer....things have changed and moved on...yeah Zikky's advise.

thought you were no longer interested in the discussion. Anyways, i have seen you don't understand my post.

Snowwy:
Yeah, incase you have not read up to that part in your bible, you do not need to burn anything as offering to God now...just give it. Read Paul in Phil 4:18:

I was only responding to something i observed in your post above If you say i don't need to burn my (cereal) offering as done/practiced in the O.T, i should "just give it", what are you saying? Are you not saying we moved away from the O.T practice? That's my understanding of your post it appears we've gone full circle and arrived back where we started cos that's what i stated in my initial (first) post, which of course you refused to accept

Zikkyy:
'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.

You've come back to agree with my post above when you said i don't need to burn my cereal offering anymore don't know why it took you this long to accept this

Yeah Zikky,
The discussion that led to me quoting the OT was not about burnt offering it was about what the priests partook of (the priests portion)...you brought it in thinking 'I would not be able to dribble my way out of this one'. It was obvious when you didn't paste the whole scripture I quoted.
Therefore, we were never saying the same things...you were just trying to 'set traps' which has caught nothing.
Nice day!

you guys shud stop arguing

@goshen360,
Your not responding speaks volumes. Please let us 'close' on Heb 7:18.

@ Snowwy,

I didn't keep quiet deliberately but come to conclusion that, it seems that you too are bent on your own interpretation when when it is clear that verse 12 says as the priesthood changed, the laws too changed. So I decided to just rest on this issue. You have made some statements that seems to me as if you are bent on what you believe about tithe and not ready to accept another view. I have tithed many times in the past, as i come to know more as you also know, i don't believe in tithe anymore. Not because i don't want to give but we CANNOT FULFILL BIBLICAL TITHING. Meaning, they are crops and animals and if we have to convert to money, then we must add 20% to make it tithable. So I have come to conclusion to just give and remove the law of "certain" percentage attached to tithing and just give from my heart, sacrificially, generously, cheerfully and as the Lord lays in my heart. This is my conclusion.

Heb 7:18 explains itself of the annulment of the old commandment, the law. So, you believe in tithing, keep doing it. I don't believe in tithing anymore but giving, i will keep doing it. None of us is God going to put in hell for not tithing or giving but we do what we do by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. When a discussion comes, of which i try to stay off tithe topics this days on NL, i will still say what i know and understand and you can also say your understanding. I drop my teaching on tithe i was going to do and as you said, just allow everyone to go on his or her conviction, however, when any discussion arise on tithing here on NL, then i will contribute wisely. YOU MAKE ONE OF THE BEST PEOPLE I EVER MET HERE ON NL AND I AM GRATEFUL TO GOD FOR BRING PEOPLE LIKE YOU MY WAY. God bless you.

Again, am doing a study and trying to find an answer to a certain kweshion from my bible study. I don't know if you have knowledge about it or can answer it. If you are interested, I can ask you. Just wanna know first before i ask you. It's like the kweshion is a bit hard anyway. lol.

Waiting on you sir.

goshen360: @ Snowwy,

I didn't keep quiet deliberately but come to conclusion that, it seems that you too are bent on your own interpretation when when it is clear that verse 12 says as the priesthood changed, the laws too changed. So I decided to just rest on this issue. You have made some statements that seems to me as if you are bent on what you believe about tithe and not ready to accept another view. I have tithed many times in the past, as i come to know more as you also know, i don't believe in tithe anymore. Not because i don't want to give but we CANNOT FULFILL BIBLICAL TITHING. Meaning, they are crops and animals and if we have to convert to money, then we must add 20% to make it tithable. So I have come to conclusion to just give and remove the law of "certain" percentage attached to tithing and just give from my heart, sacrificially, generously, cheerfully and as the Lord lays in my heart. This is my conclusion.

Heb 7:18 explains itself of the annulment of the old commandment, the law. So, you believe in tithing, keep doing it. I don't believe in tithing anymore but giving, i will keep doing it. None of us is God going to put in hell for not tithing or giving but we do what we do by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. When a discussion comes, of which i try to stay off tithe topics this days on NL, i will still say what i know and understand and you can also say your understanding. I drop my teaching on tithe i was going to do and as you said, just allow everyone to go on his or her conviction, however, when any discussion arise on tithing here on NL, then i will contribute wisely. YOU MAKE ONE OF THE BEST PEOPLE I EVER MET HERE ON NL AND I AM GRATEFUL TO GOD FOR BRING PEOPLE LIKE YOU MY WAY. God bless you.

Again, am doing a study and trying to find an answer to a certain kweshion from my bible study. I don't know if you have knowledge about it or can answer it. If you are interested, I can ask you. Just wanna know first before i ask you. It's like the kweshion is a bit hard anyway. lol.

Waiting on you sir.

@goshen, Your posts have been punctuated by a lot of self-interpreted and self added words (like telling me that Abrahams tithe was abolished by the Levitical tithe, or the tithe was a primary law that established the Levitical priesthood-NOT a single scripture backing). It tells me a lot actually about how you interprete.

I have even noticed besides that after I explained some scriptures to you when you gave yours you did not comment further. It was you that wanted to show me some biblical truths that I did not know about and sorry all this has not changed anything infact it has only reinforced my views of those against giving tithe.
All the scriptures they quote against tithe actually are for tithe and not against it.

You have also basically told me that between the perfection of Levitical Priesthood or 'perfection' of tithe...tithe was the one disannulled (as the commandment going before) for its unprofitableness and weakness rather than the Levitical Priesthoods. (Edited)

If after all the explanations in this thread cumulating to Hebrews, you still believe that tithe was disannulled in Hebrews 7:18 meanwhile the law that it was talking about was the law of the carnal commandment going before which I quoted specifically for you in the OT then there is no further need to try to explain to you.

I am only bent on the interpretation of the Word through the Spirit and with scriptural backing. Not making some spurious comments without a leg to stand on.(Edited)

I did not respond to you so you could start giving tithe...I only wanted to hear out the biblical 'truths' on tithe you had so go on in your beliefs and I in mine. However you have not shown one verse in the NT that was against tithe. (edited)
Let us put this to rest.


As per the question you want to ask on your study...well if you won't turn around to say I am bent on my interpretation...LOL...let us hear it afterall we get to learn and see the need to study more on this 'hard' question.

Ok. Thanks for the fellowship anyway. Maybe we will get to strengthen our talk on tithe next time as we keep studying but right now, i have other things i really have to put my strength to study. Simply accept my excuse for now. I might also stay a little away from NL for some time except for talking to you here in answering this question am asking. Ok.

Now to the question, I once mentioned to you I was gonna order some study materials, which I did and while am studying on some pressing topics, i had to cross reference Genesis 1:1-2. I was able to dig deep into Genesis 1:1 about numbers of heaven[b]s[/b] that was created. I also realized that Genesis 1:1 is NOT the very beginning but the account of the beginning of creations of the universe cf: John 1:1.

Now to Genesis 1:2,

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

I was also able to dig deep where the darkness came from in verse 2 here that God created the earth formless, dark and void cf Job 38:4-9, emphasis on 9. Now the question is, John 4:24 says, "God [is] Spirit". If God is Spirit and Genesis 1:2 says, the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Does this mean that Spirit, which God is as per John 4:24 still have Spirit?

Let me re-frame Genesis 1:2 this way for better clarification to you to answer,

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Spirit God was hovering over the face of the waters.

That is kweshion one.

Kweshion 2, which waters is it talking about at the end of the verse 2 since we were not told any water was created between verse 1 and 2. So which waters is talking about at the end of verse 2. While you prepare to answer both, am still digging bro.

Await your response. Thanks

^^^^
I would advise you begin a new thread since your question does not relate to this thread.
Cheers.

^ ^ ^
I got answers to the above kweshion by myself. Thanks

@goshen,
That is great. Got possible answers as well. Infact not far fetched. However, it's nicer you asked and answered.
Take care then and all the best in your studies.

pst bolanta this will help you more

hmmmmmm what a sweet contributions here,no pastor will pray for you guys after reading through all your contributions on tithe

even though they dont pray for us but we have succeeded in letting them know that we know all these while that they have been robbing us of our hard earn money. may God have mercy on them.: