chukwudi44:


Since christ is doing burnt oferings for us in heaven he must also be paying tithes for us in heaven so we need to bother abi why should he do one and leave the other when he can do both of them

chukwudi44:


Jesus was on this plant for 33 yeas why didn't he demand tithe in the order of melchizedek

ttalks:

Before the law, there were tithes.

When the law came, there were instructions by the law to tithe.
It was based on the instructions by the law to tithe that the people under the law tithed.

It is also very clear that every encouragement or motivation to tithe which currently happens is based on what the law said.

Christ himself also said that tithes were part of the law (Matthew 23:23).

Now any body who needs to settle it for himself/herself whether to tithe or not to tithe as a Christian has to understand the law and its complete distinction,seperation and difference from the new covenant.

N/B: The new covenant is not a continuation or adjustment/editing/addition of the old covenant(Law); it is a completely seperate and new covenant.

Further enligthenement can be gotten by reading the article in this link:

The Misunderstood Covenant.

Settle this for urselves people.

Ttalk you are wholly wrong on that statement and to KunleOshod and Chukwudi44, Jesus never said titheing was part of the law, you are misquoting scriptures, rather what Jesus said was that they paid tithe according to the law meaning "according to the way the law says titheing should be practised". The Titheing that Abraham did was not the same as the one the law/people of the law practised.

Abraham gave as was the customs of the old, in Hebrew language it was called 'Piel' meaning "He gave tithe" while that which the Israelites gave was 'Qal' meaning "To tithe", the former was given based on choice, while the latter was given based on Command. Do you understand?

The problem is that you guys dont really study deeply you just read and follow the crowd not minding if the what they are saying is correct or not.

I am not a pastor nor someone who works in the church for pay, i use to pay tithe because the pastor says i should tithe, then later i stopped because i listened to what peeps said that titheing was no longer relevant with their false proofs, until some few months i took the time to secretly study what titheing meant and its significance in our faith. I saw that what the people criticised about titheing was that it was the law which to me was a baseless evidence, but when i studied i discovered it was not the law, the titheing of the law is Qal in Hebrew( study the hebrew version of the bible) while the titheing of Abraham, Jacob were Piel, So if the law was fulfilled, it meant that the Qal was fulfilled by Jesus and not Piel which no wonder the bible said Jesus never belong to the order of AARON(Qal tither) but the order of MELCHISEDEK( Piel tither), same thing about offerings,that was why i said Offering and its significance is another topic of its own.

Now in my own opinion, the reason why the Apostles never said much about titheing was that it was not as important as titheing was to our eternal life, because Jesus said in Matt.23:23 that the weightier part of the law was Justice, mercy and faith while titheing still yet should not be left undone.

Again i say that if Titheing was the law according to your guys, then Justice, mercy and faith are also law, because Jesus called them Law too, so if Jesus abolished the Law like you guys think therefore Justice, mercy and faith were both abolished, aint that funny 

You guys never seize to make me laff, if you have points to present , then do so explicitly and dont come up with heresy that because Paul warned us against greedy shepherds extorting money from their sheep meant that he warned us against tithe-takers. A pastor may choose not to take tithe but yet steal seriously from offering, so what has titheing got to do with greedy shepherds, those points simply show signs of spiritual immaturity and nothing more

Bring your strong points and not counter the others point when they do so, God bless ya'll Chukwudi, KunleOshod,Ttalks my brothers.

Hebrews 7:1-10 recites Abraham's encounter with Melchisedec. The literary purpose for referencing the story was to demonstrate that the Levitical priesthood was not the pinnacle of God's plan. As the author made clear, that priesthood could not bring perfection (v. 11). Even the law foretold of a priest who would arise after Melchisedec's order, and not of Aaron's (Psalm 110:4). There would have been no need for another order of priests had the Aaronic order been the pinnacle of God's plan. Hebrews 8:6 clues us in to the point of chapters 5 and 7, concluding that Jesus' ministry is better than Levi's, and the covenant Jesus established is better than the Mosaic Covenant. The remainder of the eighth chapter, coupled with chapters 9-10, continue to demonstrate the superiority of the New Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant.

With that as a backdrop, let us now now look specifically at the immediate context of Hebrews 7:12. The author argued that the Aaronic priesthood was inextricably connected with the Law of Moses (v. 11). Because of this connection, when one is abolished, the other is also abolished with it. The author continued, "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law" (v.12), How was the priesthood changed? Was it simply a reorganization of the current system? Was it the changing of certain positions? No. The entire Aaronic priesthood was abolished and replaced with the Melchisedecian priesthood. Starting with this radical change of the priesthood the author argued that the law (the formalized rules by which the people govern their lives) must also be changed because of such an event. If the change of the priesthood was a complete replacement of one order for another, why would we believe that the change of the law only refers to a revamping of the Law of Moses?

I must appreaciate you for that link, it explained all i have been trying to make here since, no wonder i say there is that lets read things with unbiased mind the truth will always be the truth, pls others read this and explain what you understand.

And also to your 1st line, i know that something is trying to tell you 'this is the truth ttalks, but ego wont let you accept it, nobody wants to loose, i understand!, but never worry i aint here to win either but to show you the truth as it is. God bless you

Tonye-t:

ttalks,

I read that link and there was nothing in connection to the topic, but the law, the same with the one you just posted, what a surprise that even the link you offerred was even buttressing my point farther that the law never affected the people who came b4 it like Abraham>Jacob. I had to paste this paragraphs from that article so you will even learn it

And also to your 1st line, i know that something is trying to tell you 'this is the truth ttalks, but ego wont let you accept it, nobody wants to loose, i understand!, but never worry i aint here to win either but to show you the truth as it is. God bless you [/color][/font]

This understanding of the Law is very important to our understanding of the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant because it is commonly taught that Jesus only abolished the ceremonial and civil laws of the Mosaic Covenant when he established the New Covenant, leaving the moral law still effective. However, because the Scripture depicts the Law as a single, unified-whole we must conclude that Jesus abolished the entire Mosaic Covenant, including its moral laws (James 2:10-11). This does not mean that God no longer has laws concerning morality today. God's moral nature demands that He will always have a moral law for mankind. Before the Law He instructed men through their conscience and through oral laws passed down from generation to generation (Romans 2:12-16). This was necessary because no written revelation existed before the Law of Moses that could define right and wrong. Abraham never had a Scripture to tell him about God's laws, yet we read that Abraham obeyed God's voice, kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws (Genesis 26:5). The laws of God that have to do with His moral nature predated the Law of Moses and were added to what we think of as the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law, but when Jesus abolished the Law at His death (Hebrews 9:16-17) even what we would call the moral aspects of the Law were abolished. God did not abolish His own moral laws when He eradicated the Law, but He did eradicate the legality of the covenant in its entirety. He could not abolish some parts of the Law and not others because it stood as a single unit. After abolishing the entire covenant God reiterated His moral commandments to the church via the New Testament Scriptures. Whatever God's moral laws were before the Mosaic Covenant were also contained in the Mosaic Law, and continue to be so for us in the church age, written for us in the New Testament Scriptures. These moral laws were contained in the Law of Moses, but we have no way of judging whether or not they were part of God's moral law except for the fact that the command is reiterated in the New Testament Scriptures. If a Mosaic command does not reappear in the New Testament it can be concluded that it was not part of God's eternal moral law, for the identity of God's moral law is found in the expression of revelatory commandments in His Word (Romans 7:7-13).

Tonye-t:

And to add erasers to your errors, i will write that

Ttalks,

1. Who seperated /categorised the scriptures as OT and NT

2. Was the Pentatiouch lived in the Law or before the Law

3. Who institutionalised Titheing to the Israelites

4. Was Abraham an Israelites

Pls help answer this questions they will do you alot of good

Ttalks brong evidences from the scriptures and not link to another's article which could be false or wrongly informative

Tonye-t:

Ttalks,

I have just a question for you

Did Abraham or Jacob who tithed did so during the Law or before the law?

Your answer to this is what will make me skip/refer to your comments as relevant/ irrelevants henceforth

and mind you i wasnt thinking highly of myself, because i would have said i won. Dont act too smart my brother!

God bless you!

Tonye-t:

Ttalks,

I have just a question for you

Did Abraham or Jacob who tithed did so during the Law or before the law?

Your answer to this is what will make me skip/refer to your comments as relevant/ irrelevants henceforth

and mind you i wasnt thinking highly of myself, because i would have said i won. Dont act too smart my brother!

God bless you!

Tonye-t:

And to add erasers to your errors, i will write that

Ttalks,

1. Who seperated /categorised the scriptures as OT and NT

2. Was the Pentatiouch lived in the Law or before the Law

3. Who institutionalised Titheing to the Israelites

4. Was Abraham an Israelites

Pls help answer this questions they will do you alot of good

Ttalks brong evidences from the scriptures and not link to another's article which could be false or wrongly informative

ttalks:

Tithing is not a requirement;whether physical or spiritual; for us Christians.This is so very simple to deduce.
Why is this hard to swallow?

Allta:

@ Mr Tonye-t

This is what I know , people should be allowed to do what they believe is right! Being a Christian is a choice in the first place, believing there is a God is a choice in the first place, btw there are still "Bible Believing" people till date that think eating pig is wrong and there are still some that sacrifice rams and bulls to appease God. There still people who pay Tithe annually, every 3 years and even using fruit produce rather than money, the only thing that consign me is to preach the gospel, the truth and make disciples of nations. If those disciples chooses to take my interpretation about tithing/sacrificing/pig-eating, it's between them and their God. If they decide to even eat their "Tithe" along with the motherless, orphans, levites/pastors, foreigners, I WILL GLADLY LET THEM!

A lot as been said about this tithing thing and I just don't want to be dragged into another hulla-balloo. But if Christ didn't Tithe, and the people that were first called Christians didn't, whatever consequences they suffered for not doing so, I'm prepared to suffer same. Maybe Tithe wasn't relevant in their days , the early days which followed crucifixion, maybe it's only relevant in our own days; everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of the word of God, but that wouldn't change God's word.

Hey, talking about Matt 23:23, why did the Bible say that the Pharisees, Saducees and Hypocrites paid Tithe but didn't record that Christ and the Disciples tithed? Or why didn't the Bible record that Early Christians , those who were first called Christians paid Tithe. Why did Tithe now resurfaced years after the Bible days?

Please tell people the truth about Tithe, if they still want to pay, let them, and if they don't, let them as well.

Until someone show me from the Bible that Jesus, The Disciples and Early Church paid Tithe, I will continue to believe it's not new testamental. I do believe sha that the Pharisees, Saducees and Hypocrites pay Tithe. At least the New Testament recorded it.

Allta:

My dear Mr Tonye-t,

For one second, let me assume I'm wrong with that statement, but If early Christ, The Disciples and Christians neglected the lightier part, then I'm prepared to serve the consequences they served. In other words, if there was no record (in the Bible ofcourse) to show they didn't neglect the "lightier part", then I believe there will be no record to show that me too, will neglect them. My brother, I have chosen to concentrate on those things that do count. Like I said, I'm opened to witnesses which are only inspired by God's words that early Christians didn't neglect Tithing.

BTW, I believe the Law was binding before the death of Christ, and it was at that point that things shifted, isn't it? But despite that, no record showed Christ or Disciples paid Tithe, or am I missing out something?

Tonye-t:

why are folks finding it so hard to absorb this simple truth

Tonye-t:

Yes brother u are missing out something

1. Jesus talked about titheing that it should not be neglected, now isnt that reason enough to know that because he didnt tithe doenst mean he rejected titheing as a whole

2. When he was approached about his disciples not fasting, what did he say, didnt he say that because they have not fasted doesnt mean they should not fast

3. Did Jesus or any of his disciples give offering on record, answer is no, yet Jesus talked about offering and thus we practise it today

4. To me the minimal mention of things like offerings, titheing , alms were standards that should not be over-emphasized, souls were lost Jesus and hos disciples focused on that to save souls, now after their salvation how will they be managed, if offerings, titheings and giving were of no importance.

Before the law, there were tithes.

When the law came, there were instructions by the law to tithe.
It was based on the instructions by the law to tithe that the people under the law tithed.

It is also very clear that every encouragement or motivation to tithe which currently happens is based on what the law said.

Christ himself also said that tithes were part of the law (Matthew 23:23).

Now any body who needs to settle it for himself/herself whether to tithe or not to tithe as a Christian has to understand the law and its complete distinction,seperation and difference from the new covenant.

N/B: The new covenant is not a continuation or adjustment/editing/addition of the old covenant(Law); it is a completely seperate and new covenant.

@Tonye-t
I see you are back to spread your false, evil and fraudulent doctrine of tithes in christianity Angry please note i would be around to to prove from scriptures that all your hallucinations about tithes are purely doctrines of men without sound scriptural basis.

It is also an embarassment to christianity as you tithes preachers are attempting to turn christianity to a false religion via marmon worship which christ warned us against. That apart i would also like to remind you that the tithes which the pharisees gave [not paid] in your favourite Matthew 23:23 [which you love mis-interrpreting] was mint and cumin[agricultural produce] NOT shekels or any other form of money that was being spent then. Tithing today remains the biggest fraud in christianity and by extention the history of mankind and no matter how much you so called christians try to twist the scriptures the truth is already out and God's Judgement shall prevail on those who twist his word to fleece the flock and make money 2peter 2:1-3