Ihedinobi:
You answered a question and I asked if you understood it and you ask me "which question"? Beyond telling you that the question I asked if you understood was the same one you tried to answer, what exactly do you expect of me, Zikkyy?

i answered a lot of questions with you it's difficult to know which answer or which question. you need to be specific

Ihedinobi:
And your implying that I might pretend not to know what law you were talking about was not an indictment of my honesty? Why "just in case" if you didn't think there was the possibility of a case?

in everything (..well.. almost), there is always that possibility. that's why people do risk management. you did not pretend abi? so no wahala

Zikkyy:

He called it shadow abi? he did not it was the real thing. i will advise you go for the real stuff and stop chasing shadows that will take you nowhere.

So it does not describe anything but you agree that it was a shadow of things to come? "Shadows of things to come" cannot mean description of things to come, can it?

The holy spirit cannot be wrong. now i don't remember seeing the word 'necessary' in that bible verse. anyways Paul said scripture is useful (i.e. there are benefit to be derived from using it), but not for this purpose. if you rendered assistance to a stranger that was stranded on your way to work this morning and you cannot explain/understand why you helped him. the law book cannot not help you. the law book will only tell you do this; don't do that.

Ok, Zikkyy, it's useful not necessary, right? I see what you're saying. We might as well box up our Bibles since the benefits derivable from it are optional, mm. I hear you. Never mind "desire the sincere milk of the word" or other Scriptures just like that. Good one, Zikkyy.

What purpose again did you say the Scriptures are notuseful for? Instruction? Or exhortation? What?

Zikkyy:

....and 99.9% of the time, am right i don't manufacture facts out of nothing. it was right there, in the tone of ya post.

You lie, Zikkyy.

how can it be Goshen's logic when you know Goshen does not consider Jesus a tithe collector. which one be 'despicably dishonest' for this matter. in fact, you should be praising me for being so good afterall i did not make any false accusation, abi?

Of course, how could it be indeed. It was me not Goshen who was saying that of tithing were being practiced as it should be, so-and-so would be collecting it, right? You're very dishonest, Zikkyy, and it is annoying me right now very much.

@bolded, yes. Goshen was not thinking Jesus.

Terrible lie, Zikkyy. Very terrible indeed.

Goshen's theory does not consider Jesus as a tithe collector, but Ihedinobi's interpretation did. i think you are just not happy i can read you with so much ease it's not my fault you know.

My interpretation, Zikkyy? Ok, let's try that question I asked you before once more, shall we? Who does Aaron correspond to in the New Covenant?

It simple, if you believe Jesus collects tithe, then you already agree that tithing is acceptable under the new covenant. no be so?

Fine. So what do you want of me?

Zikkyy:

i answered a lot of questions with you it's difficult to know which answer or which question. you need to be specific

Zikkyy, you are being annoyingly dishonest.

Ihedinobi:
So it does not describe anything but you agree that it was a shadow of things to come? Shadows are not descriptions, are they?

Shadows are description but be careful how you use it. try measuring the lenght of ya shadow at 10am 12noon, 2pm and 4pm and tell me which of these measurement correctly reflects ya height. can i tell ya complexion from ya shadow? i read somewhere the jews are still expecting the messiah. why? afterall, they owned (was given only to them) this shadow you talk about.

Ihedinobi:
Ok, Zikkyy, it's useful not necessary, right? I see what you're saying. We might as well box up our Bibles since the benefits derivable from it are optional, mm. I hear you. Never mind "desire the sincere milk of the word" or other Scriptures just like that. Good one, Zikkyy.

see me see wahala what's my own? when am not the one that wrote that bible verse. if you have issues with the use of the word 'useful' go and resolve it with apostle paul abeg

Ihedinobi:
What purpose again did you say the Scriptures are notuseful for? Instruction? Or exhortation? What?

the part where you attempt to use the (mosaic) law to figure out why you are giving 10% of ya income to your pastor

Zikkyy:

in everything (..well.. almost), there is always that possibility. that's why people do risk management. you did not pretend abi? so no wahala

So what was the nonsense about not saying that I'm dishonest about?

Zikkyy:

Shadows are description but be careful how you use it. try measuring the lenght of ya shadow at 10am 12noon, 2pm and 4pm and tell me which of these measurement correctly reflects ya height. can i tell ya complexion from ya shadow? i read somewhere the jews are still expecting the messiah. why? afterall, they owned (was given only to them) this shadow you talk about.

@bolded: that means that you were mistaken earlier.

see me see wahala what's my own? when am not the one that wrote that bible verse. if you have issues with the use of the word 'useful' go and resolve it with apostle paul abeg

Are you not the one interpreting useful as opposed to necessary, Zikkyy, or was that Paul?

the part where you attempt to use the (mosaic) law to figure out why you are giving 10% of ya income to your pastor

Oh, that's covered by "instruction", isn't it?

Ihedinobi:
You lie, Zikkyy.

How? that i got my facts right?

Ihedinobi:
Of course, how could it be indeed. It was me not Goshen who was saying that of tithing were being practiced as it should be, so-and-so would be collecting it, right? You're very dishonest, Zikkyy, and it is annoying me right now very much.

I think the problem here is due to you reading me wrongly. i guess it's one of the hazards that comes with communicating with questions if we communicate normally, i don't think we'll have this mis-understanding.

Ihedinobi:
Terrible lie, Zikkyy. Very terrible indeed.

na wa o!

i really don't see how i lied, and my posts here were made in good faith. but if it will make you happy, i guess i have to apologize. so brother Ihedinobi, am very sorry

Zikkyy:

So you agree the disciples did not use the contributions for spreading the gospel that's good.



let me rephrase so you will understand; the work of the apostles was not to run a motherless babies home. The contributions went towards meeting the daily needs of the believers.



A lot of difference. contribution is biblical for Christians



I wonder what this is all about. i do know it is not a response to anything have said. is this the result of frustration or anger? are you experiencing a decrease in tithe collections due to the activities of anti-tithe crusaders?



Nobody is saying you should not. But don't result to coercing members to get the funding you need. Like i said earlier, if there is a need for members to tackle, they can always contribute. You are just too obsess with tithe to see clearly. What if N10,000 was needed to solve the need and the total tithe collection is just N5,000? what's wrong with the members contributing the N10,000?



what's wrong with that? if the church believes they need a reserve fund for emergency, let them contribute to the fund, simple.



Maybe i don't. but i do know that it is wrong to force cash out of congregation.

NO, THEY ALSO USED IT FOR THE GOSPEL.

Philippians 4:18-19 KJV
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. [19] But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

hmmm....I CAN SEE. SO THEY PUT IN YOUR HEAD TO FORCE MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET. OR YOUR PASTOR PUT HIS HAND IN YOUR POCKET TO FORCE MONEY OUT, RIGHT? UNTIL U BECOME A LEADER, THEN U WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRINCIPLES OR WAYS OF GOD IS ALL ABOUT. FOR NOW,U STIL TAKE MILK. I DONT HAVE ANYTHING SAY MUCH HERE. PLS ONE QUESTION, I KNOW U ARE BORN AGAIN. BUT ARE U A WORKER IN YOUR CHURCH?

Ihedinobi:
So what was the nonsense about not saying that I'm dishonest about?

Considering the possibility does not make you dishonest. i will only consider you to be a dishonest person if and when you decide to pretend.

Ihedinobi:
@bolded: that means that you were mistaken earlier.

Mistaken for where? am ever consistent. you were the one reading wrong meanings to ma post. see my post again:

Zikkyy:
He called it shadow abi? he did not it was the real thing. i will advise you go for the real stuff and stop chasing shadows that will take you nowhere.

i did not say say shadows don't describe. that was your interpretation. all i stated here was that the shadow is not the same as the real thing. it is what it is; a shadow. simple.

Ihedinobi:
Are you not the one interpreting useful as opposed to necessary, Zikkyy, or was that Paul?

interpreting useful is not the same thing as me replacing paul's words with mine. all i did was interpret Paul's statement.

*am really feeling like the injured party here but no wahala.*

Ihedinobi:
Oh, that's covered by "instruction", isn't it?

Not exactly. it's actually covered by 'pastoral instruction'

peteregwu:
NO, THEY ALSO USED IT FOR THE GOSPEL.

we are talking about the quote you made in your first post (i think). you said the contributions in Acts 4 was for the apostle's work to progress. see it below

peteregwu: GIVING TO THE LORD BRINGS OPEN DOORS
It brings joy and blessings when one gives to the Lord for His work. U will not lack. "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, [35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Acts 4:34-35 KJV.

If read above, they gave to the apostles for the work to make progress.

peteregwu:
hmmm....I CAN SEE. SO THEY PUT IN YOUR HEAD TO FORCE MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET. OR YOUR PASTOR PUT HIS HAND IN YOUR POCKET TO FORCE MONEY OUT, RIGHT?

Not me. i don't give a tenth of my income to a pastor. am referring to those who that been harassed with malachi 3:10, they had no option but to tithe.

peteregwu:
UNTIL U BECOME A LEADER, THEN U WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRINCIPLES OR WAYS OF GOD IS ALL ABOUT.

I think what i will see is the difficulty pastors face when it comes to fund raising. the reason is a significant proportion (could be up 80%) of congregation are not Christians. and that is the truth. pastors have failed in their drive to win converts for Christ, so they settle for the money now. I strongly believe you are one of them.

peteregwu:
PLS ONE QUESTION, I KNOW U ARE BORN AGAIN. BUT ARE U A WORKER IN YOUR CHURCH?

i think this is too personal a question to answer on a public forum.

Zikkyy:

we are talking about the quote you made in your first post (i think). you said the contributions in Acts 4 was for the apostle's work to progress. see it below





Not me. i don't give a tenth of my income to a pastor. am referring to those who that been harassed with malachi 3:10, they had no option but to tithe.



I think what i will see is the difficulty pastors face when it comes to fund raising. the reason is a significant proportion (could be up 80%) of congregation are not Christians. and that is the truth. pastors have failed in their drive to win converts for Christ, so they settle for the money now. I strongly believe you are one of them.



i think this is too personal a question to answer on a public forum.

whatever the money is used for; the needs of the or whatever the case maybe is for the glory of God so that nothing will hinder the progress of the gospel. my friend the gospel cant move forward without money. dont u get it.

now, you are claiming the pastors have failed, i see...mr perfect. "behold nathaniel, in whom their is no guile." what is your own work in the body of Christ. you hav become God to declare that the pastors have failed. you now the one in the right direction. Romans 8:33-34 KJV
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. [34] Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.


it is now personal to answer if you ars worker or not in the church. u see, if u are a worker in your church, believe me, u will be happy to answer that question. except u are one of those wu does not know their left or right.

now had it been u are a worker in the church u will have a heavy heart for pastors. my friend u dont know what it entails being a leader. u think its just going to work and receiving salaty at the end of the month.

well, until then

Pastor Kun: With all due respect I wld like to submit that ihedinobi is a very dis honest poster as far as scamming in the. Church is concerned.

*yawns*
tell us another story, you say this rubbish like aribisala to everyone who gives tithe or sees no evil in it.

Ihedinobi:

So it does not describe anything but you agree that it was a shadow of things to come? "Shadows of things to come" cannot mean description of things to come, can it?



Ok, Zikkyy, it's useful not necessary, right? I see what you're saying. We might as well box up our Bibles since the benefits derivable from it are optional, mm. I hear you. Never mind "desire the sincere milk of the word" or other Scriptures just like that. Good one, Zikkyy.

What purpose again did you say the Scriptures are notuseful for? Instruction? Or exhortation? What?

one said call me 'Pastor' not 'pastor'. Now another has come with 'useful' and 'necessary'. really,
God help us.

peteregwu:
it is now personal to answer if you ars worker or not in the church.

Sorry, I don't do personal stuff online.

peteregwu:
now had it been u are a worker in the church u will have a heavy heart for pastors. my friend u dont know what it entails being a leader. u think its just going to work and receiving salaty at the end of the month.

well, until then

This is no justification for preaching an unbiblical practice (for Christians).

Ihedinobi:

@bolded: Am I indeed.

Yes! You are indeed importing 'tithe' into that context. My reason being that, that was the text you laid emphasis on to answer the question of who receives tithe today that I asked.

Ihedinobi:

Are tithes collected, that is, are tithes collections? Are they material blessings?

I did tell you to pay attention, didn't I, Goshen?

Okay, if tithes were material blessings, then what about it? The point is or maybe I should say you're confusing 'free gift' to COMMANDED GIFT BY A LAW. The text you quoted NEVER said those who preach the gospel should receive their reward\wages from WHAT WAS COMMANDED TO THOSE WHO MINISTER IN THE TEMPLE OF OLD NEITHER DOES THE TEXT SAY THEY SHOULD GET THEIR FOOD FROM THE ALTAR LIKE THOSE WHO MINISTER AT THE ALTAR. The text says, the Lord commanded and going back to where the Lord commanded it for those who preach the gospel, it was WHATEVER THEY ARE GIVEN - A freewill gift. That's why I said, you are going BEYOND what was written or commanded to those who preach the gospel.

Are tithes collection? The answer to this question is NO! Not for the New Testament Church and here is what the New Testament collection is,

New International Version (©2011)
Now about the collection for the Lord's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Now regarding your question about the money being collected for God's people in Jerusalem. You should follow the same procedure I gave to the churches in Galatia. On the first day of each week, you should each put aside a portion of the money you have earned. Don't wait until I get there and then try to collect it all at once.

1 Corinthians 16:1

Ask yourself this, how many churches you see doing this biblical collections for the poor in Jerusalem? This is the Apostolic practice of then. Again, tithe is a COMMAND THAT MUST BE ADHERED TO BY THE MOSAIC LAW NOT A FREE WILL COLLECTION THAT WAS SHARED AMONG THE POOR OR COLLECTED FOR THE POOR. The only place I found collection in the word of God is this text, and it is for the poor brethren in Jerusalem.

Ihedinobi:
These material blessings that you agree that ministers of the Word are entitled to, are they ever collected together in the church?

If they are collected as you stated, what are they collected as? As tithe or as free giving from those who are fed in spiritual things. You need to show us where from scriptures they are collected as TITHE because I have shown you they are collected as a FREEWILL giving.

Ihedinobi:

I think that the short of everything you said above is that ministers of the Gospel have been granted the right, nay, commanded by the Lord to receive their wages and sustenance from preaching the Gospel. Your contentions are that tithes were not specifically mentioned and the tone of our Lord's command was such that the wages that the ministers of the Gospel receive must be freely given.

Goshen's Concern #1: Tithes were not specifically mentioned.

Would they need to be if our Lord and His disciples took for granted that it was an eternal principle?

What kind of argument is this? If they weren't said to be taken care of by tithe but by free will, why then do you go beyond what is written to mean tithe is collection? Can it mean both freewill and tithe at the same time? What is eternal principle? The same thing when some people are questioned on tithe, they resort it to principle. Wasn't tithe a COMMANDMENT ACCORDING TO THE LAW? When does commandment changed to PRINCIPLES?

Ihedinobi:

Goshen's Concern #2: Whatever the ministers were to receive as wages must be without compulsion.

If it is natural to the believer to give a tenth of his material wealth toward the wages of those who minister to him spiritually, would it be a matter of obligating him or compelling him to pay tithes if one appealed to his natural inclination to do so? Does a thing's nature not compel that thing to behave in a particular way and still be free in its actions behaving that way?

Look at the way you are changing what is commanded to being NATURAL. You are going beyond what is written. That's the truth of the word. The word says, the Levites were COMMANDED TO RECEIVE TITHE AND NOT BY NATURAL LAW BUT MY MOSAIC LAW and they should give a tenth part to Aaron. Simple and short. Again, I read in one of your response where you said, Aaron would represent the Lord, not modern pastors of today. Then who does the LEVITES represents since they are the ones to RECEIVE THE TITHE first? Can you see how your argument is full of lope holes? Again, what do you mean by if one appealed to his natural inclination to do so? Did Christ sent those who he sent to preach the gospel to appeal to people to do so? or allow the people to give freely? .....going beyond what is written!

Ihedinobi:

Edit: PS. I feel that I must add the following: the question we're discussing is who receives the tithes in the House of the Lord today? My answer is those that minister to the Body spiritually. You asked for Scriptural evidence which I offered but which you rejected on the grounds that (1)it does not mention tithes specifically and (2)the wages it speaks of that the ministers of the Word receive are not obligatory upon their givers. In the above, I have offered an address of those grounds. I offer this explanation to keep us on course and prevent running away with issues not immediately relevant to the discussion. That is why I did not address some things you said in your post.

You are tricky! You just said or asked or insinuate the tithe are collections. What then are you saying? You're the one trying to force tithe into that text. Let those who benefit from the word spiritually give free to those who preach the gospel and you will remain within the scope of what the Lord COMMANDED THAT THOSE WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL SHOULD LIVE OF THE GOSPEL. DON'T APPEAL TO THEM, CHRIST NEVER SAID YOU SHOULD GO AND APPEAL TO THEM TO GIVE, HE SAID THE PEOPLE WILL GIVE FREELY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT ON GIVING AND DON'T STIPULATE A FIXED PERCENTAGE, (10 WHICH IS TITHE) TO THEM.

Remain blessed.

Lol, communicating with questions.. That's a new one..

Well, it's not just atheists that find Ihedinobi dishonest.. *bookmarking this thread*

And I see Image123roll has nothing sensible to contribute... no atheists to troll on this thread..

Hi Gosh and Pastor Kun.. I see you're still fighting the 'TITHE' fight..

Ihedinobi:

Your answer according to the bolded is that even if our Lord and His disciples both took for granted that tithing is an eternal principle, He would still have proceeded while instructing them about their mission to give them lessons on tithing, right? Edit: why would He do so?

Commandment is different from principles! This is very clear from scriptures. That's why I said again and again, you're going beyond what is written. There's nowhere in the word of God tithe\tithing was referred to as PRINCIPLES you people always hide behind, it was a COMMANDMENT. Also, EVERYWHERE the subject or commandment of tithe\tithing was given in scriptures, that word 'tithe' all surfaced, both in the OT and NT. E.g Matthew 23:23. You're insulting Christ by insinuating that he forgot to use the word 'tithe' when he commanded that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. One thing you MUST do is, if it (tithe\tithing) was a principle, then show us scriptures instead where COMMANDMENT changed to PRINCIPLE or you show us from scriptures how COMMANDMENT is the SAME AS PRINCIPLES. Then we will look at it. Otherwise, you're going beyond what is written!

Ihedinobi:

Ok. First, I'm not disputing that giving was to be of one's free will and not compulsion.

If you're NOT disputing this, then why don't leave it as it is. Don't you know the Christian giving is different to Mosaic tithing? Tithe\tithing is a function of commandment whether the one that is commanded likes it or not but Christian giving is as a man purpose in his heart, not according to commandment. Lemme me show you that from scripture,

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Every man according as he purposes in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7

That word, NOT of NECESSITY is the Greek word anagkē and it means: 1) necessity, imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one's advantage, custom, argument. 2) calamity, distress, straits.

Tithing is a commandment BY THE LAW and Paul, the Apostle says, Christians giving should NOT be of necessity. That is, it should not be by 1) imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one's advantage, custom, argument. Tithing is a Jewish CUSTOM and it is BY LAW a COMMANDMENT. Jesus and His Apostles that wrote the whole of the New Testament NEVER taught tithing to Christians. Why are you suggestion it?

Ihedinobi:

Second, you have toed brilapluz's path of demanding specifically worded Scriptures. I cannot give you Scriptures that say specifically that tithes were given and I would appreciate your telling me why there should be records of such.

This is been tricky! You CANNOT PROVIDE FROM SCRIPTURES SPECIFICALLY THAT TITHE WERE GIVEN? This is the least I expected from you. If you cannot show from specific scriptures, then why show or insinuate or suggest tithe for New Testament Christians? Everywhere tithe is commanded, it was specifically mentioned. Hebrews 7 then dis-annulled the tithing ordinances and commandment. We have also showed you many scriptures that tithe was NOT taught to New Testament Christians but you on the other hand CANNOT show specific scriptures that tithe were given, what then is your basis for argument? You just want to argue because Alwaystrue said so to you or what?

Ihedinobi:

Third. As I have said before elsewhere, the Law describes Christ and thus the Christian. It was more than just a command that human beings behave in a particular way, it was a deacription of how Christians behave by nature without compulsion. As such, when God described things as He did, it was to make known to Adam's race what kind of human being He wants and consequently how Adam was not that kind at all and couldn't be however hard he tried.

It is natural to give but it is not natural to be legalistic in giving. It is required by law of countries for their citizens to pay taxes but it is not a law for people to give to others. In other words, people give naturally not because they are following a law of giving. Tithing is a LAW that is COMMANDED. If you can't understand this, then you need to go back into the Mosaic law and understand what tithe is. Whether they like or not, they MUST tithe. Besides, not all who live in Israel were commanded to tithe, only those that produced crops and rear animals. Others were not commanded to tithe.

m.k.o2005:

I'm just seein this,referencing the highlighted ! Thank you very much image 123.I will no longer contribute to this issue anymore. Thanks my bro.
God help every one of us
God bless us

You cannot contribute because you cannot show us where tithing was mentioned to Christians. Everywhere in scriptures where tithe was taught, the word tithe was used to communicate what is taught. Where does tithe apply to Christians in the New Testament? Even the person that advised you too cannot show it other than quoting Matthew 23:23 and tell us all scriptures is inspired as if we don't know that already or telling us, is Matthew 23:23 not part of the word of God anymore as if we don't know that too. The only tithe was mentioned in the new testament, is was ABOLISHED. Hebrews 7.

Ihedinobi:

So let's break it down, shall we?

Goshen said that nobody is practising tithing today like it should be. This, according to him, is because under the Old Covenant, the Levites collected the tenth from the rest of Israel and gave a tenth of their collection to the High Priest, that is, Aaron. Thus, said he, the church workers (whom he says sit in place of the Levites) are supposed to collect the tithes from the brethren and give the tenth to the pastor whom, according to him, is the equivalent of Aaron.

I returned that that is not true. I said that the Levites and priests of the Old Covenant corresponded to the ministers of the Word to the brethren in the New Covenant and Aaron corresponded to our Lord Jesus. Thus, following his logic, the tenth rightly is collected by those who minister spiritually and a tenth of that is remitted to our Lord.

Again, a flawed argument! I said SHOULD IT, TITHE STILL BE APPLICABLE OR PRACTICED TODAY, That's who we should have the corresponding people. Now, if you take my words out of the proper context and apply it to fit what you're arguing here, then answer this question.

If you take my words, levites and priests of old corresponds to today's ministers of the word to the brethren in the New Covenant, then who does the people of Israel, those who bring the tithe to the levites and priests corresponds to? They correspond to Christians? You need to answer that from or with scriptures please. The words that I spoken is based on hypothesis. There's nowhere in scripture Aaron corresponds to Jesus; he was only a shadow but Christ, in the book of Hebrews is better than Aaron and all believers are now made kings and priests unto God. If all Christians are now kings and priest, why then does them who are already priest correspond to priests\levites?

Ihedinobi:

Now, what did you go and do? You promptly accused me of making Jesus a tithe collector whereas it was Goshen's logic that made Him so.

Which my logic made Jesus tithe collector? Why can I present such logic when I'm against tithing for Christians except for you're reading into my words.

Ihedinobi:

As far as I am concerned, our Lord is truly entitled to the tenth of the tenth that the ministers receive. However, I was not pushing that notion at all. I was correcting Goshen's representations.

Again, I advise you, my brother, pay attention.

What is written is NOT your word, it is the word of God. Using languages such as "as far as YOU are concerned" is taking what is written as your personal interpretation. If the Lord is entitled to tithe, then is it too hard for you to show us from scriptures. You need to ask your dishonest friend Image123 who like to twist Hebrews 7:8 that it was Jesus who collected tithe. Maybe you can quote that scriptures also. If Jesus truly is entitled to tithe, kindly show us from scriptures or you're guilty of going beyond what is written or adding to God's word.

Don't correct my interpretation, show from\with scripture where Jesus is entitled to tithe or commanded tithe should be brought to him. Do you even know that, by the law, Jesus CANNOT TAKE TITHE BECAUSE HE IS FROM TRIBE OF JUDAH ACCORDING TO THE FLESH? Again, go read Hebrews 7 again. I await you to show us where Christ is entitled to tithe, IT MUST BE WRITTEN! Or is the word of God no longer our final authority? If you can't show it, then my discussion with you will go no further. At least, those who are reading this thread would have seen what is going on here.

Ihedinobi:

I believe I understood that, Goshen. I don't think that I have conveyed the impression that you think tithing is a correct practice. I understand that you conditioned everything you said on a premise that you do not accept. I have only said that you made the wrong connections. Aaron does not correspond to the pastors in churches today, tithing or no. He corresponds to our Lord Jesus Who is the New High Priest of the New Covenant. That is all.

The pastors along with everyone tasked with ministration in spiritual things in the Body correspond to the priests and the Levites.

I do not conditioned anything, I said what the word of God simply said.

As per Aaron been corresponding to pastors. Like I have said eralier, it was hypothesis from my words, SHOULD TITHE STILL BE APPLICABLE. You keep saying someone is not paying attention but you're the one not paying attention. Again, you may need to answer on the basis of question asked thereafter, that, if levites\priest are ministers of the word according to you, and Aaron corresponds to Christ, but the word of God says, ALL Christians are now PRIESTS, who then corresponds to the PEOPLE OF ISRAEL IF ALL ARE NOW MADE PRIEST ALREADY? Who takes tithe to who is all are now priests? Again, answer with scriptures please.

Ihedinobi:

Well, when you want to know what I think aboutt something, ask questions, Zikkyy. Nothing in my response to Goshen at the point that you came in at all suggested that I thought that Jesus receives tithes. If I did not later offer that I believe that He does, you'd have nothing to stand on asking the question you're asking, Zikkyy. I never expressed or implied that Jesus receives tithes until my recent admissions that I believe that He does. I expressly stated that per Goshen's reasoning, it would be Jesus that is in the place of Aaron not the pastors in churches.

If you understand my statement was based on hypothesis, why don't you treat it as such? The structure of the tabernacle and priesthood under the law allows for my hypothesis. Taking the church building as the tabernacle which is changed now, we are the church or tabernacle. Under the tabernacle structure, the levites 'could' be pictured as today's church workers while the pastors could be seen as Aaron. Then, if you're are picturing Aaron as Christ, then you must also accept the truth that the whole system is changed under the New Covenant. That is, Levites will not receive tithe which you said should correspond to ministers of the word but the scriptures says we are NOW all priests unto God. You cannot accept on the basis of my hypothesis that Aaron corresponds to Christ and neglect the truth that the priesthood also must change and the law regulating such priesthood must also change.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12

Image123: of course Debo knows that tithing is a form of giving, yes?


Hebrews 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Keep deceiving yourself with KJV and twisting God's word. It's been shown to you in the past that you're always reading into the above scriptures. That 'he' that receiveth them....in that context is not Christ but Melchizedek but you're bound to your KJV that you won't accept your confusion.

New Living Translation (©2007)
The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on.

International Standard Version (©2012)
Mortal men collect tithes, but we are informed by Scripture that Melchizedek keeps on living.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Priests receive a tenth of everything, but they die. Melchizedek received a tenth of everything, but we are told that he lives.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually].

Expanded Bible (EXB)
Priests receive a tenth, even though they are only men who live and then die [ In the one case, mortal men receive a tithe,…]. ·But Melchizedek, who received a tenth from Abraham, continues living, as the Scripture says [L …but in the other case, the one (receives the tithe) who is declared (by Scripture) to be alive].

Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Priests are given a tenth of what people earn. But all priests die, except Melchizedek, and the Scriptures teach that he is alive.

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Those priests get a tenth, but they are only men who live and then die. But Melchizedek, who got a tenth from Abraham, continues to live, as the Scriptures say.

all this long story just to encourage your conscience? na wa oh.

on hebrews7:8 you should have also quoted the original rendering to prove to us that Melchi was mentioned in the verse. Deceit is never a short cut to truth.

ogeelove: I am not adept at the words in the bible so forgive me if I project ignorance but i would like to know.

God bless you my sister.we all dont know by ourselves but we must trust the bible to tell us.i expected our discussants here to treat your queries,but so far they've skipped it most likely due to an oversight.

What tribe made up the priestly order, the levites?

The tribe of Levi,the 3rd son of Jacob were consecrated to do the service.Num 8:6,11, Num 18:1-2

Who received tithes, levites?

Yes.The levites received Tithes( Num 18:21,24) because they were exempted from having inheritance in the land(Num 18:23).The Levites then paid a Tithe from the Tithe they received from the Isrealites to the priests who were also Levites but from the family of Aaron(Num 18:26-28,Neh 10:38)

Where did the priests officiate, at the temple in jerusalem?

Yes.That is where God chose for isreal to seek him(Deut 12:5-7)

Where were tithes paid to, the temple in Jerusalem?

Yes.Deut 12:5-7,Deut 14:23,25

To what tribe did Paul belong, Benjamin?

Yes.Phil 3:5

To what tribe did Peter belong? This I really do not know.

I dont know either but we can both agree it wasn't Levi

Did Paul attend customs at the temple? From acts 21:26 (The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.) It seems to me DAT he did.

you are right sister.He did as he didn't want the Jews to think he had stopped being a Jew.He only knew those rituals had no power to save him.He was also heeding James's advice in Acts 21:20-26 so that peace could reign @ Jerusalem

Did Peter attend customs at the temple? from Acts 3:1 (Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.) It seems to me DAT he did.

Yes he did

If Peter and Paul were fully aware of GOD's law and were not levites would they have received tithes being DAT they still attended the temple? If they did, Would DAT not mean they were disobeying GOD? wouldn't there have been an uproar from their Jewish antagonists?

There would have been more than an uproar.they might have been stoned to death or scourged pitifully.everybody knows the Jews dont play with the Torah

These are questions that I am pondering, please clarify if u can.

i hope i tried answering your inquiries

I wonder if the present day Jews tithe now that there is no temple in Jerusalem and no levitical priestly order. This I must research.

pls go ahead with your research dear sister,you'll discover like i did that TITHES are no longer Paid in Jerusalem today as there's no functioning priesthood due to the destruction of the temple.

Thank you

Image123: of course Debo knows that tithing is a form of giving, yes?

Yes sir - I know tithing is a form of giving. But giving is the principle, not tithing. My posts have been fairly consistent on this.

The principle is to give with the right motives, not the percentage or quantity given.

Jesus clearly illustrated this when he observed the rich man giving and the woman giving her all - he also illustrated this when he criticised the legalistic motive of the Pharisees' giving as well.

Hebrews 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

We've discussed this already - the temple still existed at the time of writing Hebrews and Jews were still giving tithes to the Levitical Priesthood at this time. That is what Paul was referring to.

Ihedinobi:

Prayer is an eternal principle but in the days of our Lord's flesh, did the disciples take for granted with the Lord that it was so? Same question I have for the other things.

Of course they did - every Jew did. No Jew had to be told they had to pray.

And, er, is tithing not giving?

It is a form of giving, hence cannot be the principle - just like there are numerous forms of prayer. It is praying that is the principle.

Bro Image123 just reminded me of a very interesting bit of Scripture that I was failing to remember. It's Hebrews 7:8. Also, every time the Law was addressed in the New Testament, tithing was implicitly addressed as well.

What is your understanding of Hebrews 7:8? Is it referring to Paul/Apostles receiving tithes?

I'm sure I haven't said anything that even remotely suggests that to be aChristian one must be circumcised.

But you have - if, as you say, the Law (which describes requirement for physical circumcision) 'describes Christ and thus the Christian', why are you not advocating physical circumcision?

Or is physical circumcision no longer part of the law?

Now, what other type of circumcision is there?

See Romans 2:29 - ...and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

The bible says we should give to God also.
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." Mark 12:17 KJV. [/quote]which naira note carry the image of Jesus? Oga go and learn handwork or do business, Paul worked. Nobody says we should not give to church or pastor, what we are saying is that the death of Jesus had put a stop to payment of tithe, even the modern jews dont pay tithe, Jesus did not collect tithe, Peter, John, paul etc etc did not, you that is collecting whose example are you following? God bless.