Image123:
If the whole passage is talking about Jesus, then why say that Jesus is not introduced until verse 12? The writer clearly states that
Hebrews 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Isn't this context and straight enough? How is Melchi receiving tithes in the present continuous as verse 8 states? Who is witness that Melchi liveth?

External source I'll give is any center reference bible. The center reference will give you the clue to who is witnessed to be alive, the Spirit should also. if you ask.

You are simply playing with words. A simple reading of Hebrews chapter 7 shows that the Levitical Priesthood is first compared to that of Melchisedec before Jesus is shown as being above both. Jesus does not have to be mentioned in each verse for the book to be talking about Jesus. I do not need to take a verse talking about Abram or Mlchisedec and wrongly attribute it to Jesus in order for the entire book to be talking about Jesus.

Verse 8 refers to Melchisedec and the fact that he did not die, while Levitical Priests died. The use of receiveth does not connote present continuous in this context either. It simply juxtaposes a current practice (at the time of writing) of tithing to Levitical priests with a previous one, by calling on the reader to put himself at a point in history and witness Melchisedec receiving tithes from Abram.

It is also the Spirit that inspired those translators to include Melchisedec's name in their rendering to make it even clearer.

If you have any external references to provide, please do so. If not, I don't have anything else to say in this regard.

@ Debosky,

We have argued this verse in the past with Image123. Image123 seems to be on the mission to bastardize the word of God and apply gross MIS-interpretation. Lemme put it very clear here, the publishers of KJV are the same publishers of New Living Translation and my new favourite one, The Expanded Bible. These other two and many more translations says "Melchizedek" explicitly and other translations maintained the regular or usual rendering in the KJV manner without mentioning who the 'he' was in that context.

When people like Image123 goes as far as importing 'Christ' into that verse. He is therefore guilty of adding to God's word and deliberately forcing his false interpretation into the text simply because he want to argue tithe belongs to Christ. Let's wait for him to bring up any external source and as a matter of fact, the only external source is either he provide us with the original manuscript from which he derived his interpretation or use Greek Concordance to prove the text.

What Image123 is simply doing is going beyond what is written and we're warned against such. 1 Corinthians 4:6

Zikkyy:

How? that i got my facts right?

Exactly what facts did you get right, Zikkyy? The "fact" that I turned Jesus into a tithe collector?

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.

You're not trying to use excuses to avoid rrpenting your dishonesty, are you, Zikkyy?

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

What more can I do for you? If you cannot see how you lied, it might have more to do with your native disposition to righteousness than my ability to explain. You did a very underhanded thing in trying to make me responsible for Goshen's logic. Had you been an atheist arguing with me, I promise you I'd have pulled all the stops to make you pay for that lie. And believe me, you're encouraging me to believe that you need that kind of treatment.

And don't keep talking the crap about good faith, there are few murderers that didn't kill in good faith.

On a further issue, why did you skip my question about who Aaron corresponds to, Zikkyy? That's the second time you are neglecting to answer it while lying through your teeth as it were that I made Jesus a tithe collector in spite of Goshen's very words. I advise that you answer it and thus show that I have been accusing wrongly of dishonesty, if I have been.

Zikkyy:

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.

And why does the possibility arise at all? I've been posting on this forum for getting on a year now and I have discussed with you before. Where have I indicated a tendency at all to dishonesty? On what grounds is your "possibility" based?

Ihedinobi:

And why does the possibility arise at all? I've been posting on this forum for getting on a year now and I have discussed with you before. Where have I indicated a tendency at all to dishonesty? On what grounds is your "possibility" based?

A lot of your arguments to support christian tithing are purely based on dishonesty.

Zikkyy:

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



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.

Do you remember that I said this:

Ihedinobi: I'm a Christian. In the law, my natural behavior is described. I'm still growing and learning who and what I am and finding that I have certain very clear and some not-so-obvious tendencies and other very unquestionable and some not-so-clear repulsions. To understand myself, I find that I need something to explain why I exhitbit certain behaviors and naturally shun others. I hear that the Law contains an explanation.

to which you answered the following:

Zikkyy: The law (mosaic) does not contain explanations, it is a list of do'and don'ts with rewards and blessings for obedience and disobedience. If you explanation refer to Christ and the apostle's teachings joor  ....and for the abnormal behavior, what you need is a psychiatrist 

Show me how your current position is consistent with your earlier statement which is posted above.

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

Sure you did, as I said. I'm sure I wasn't the one who said you replaced Paul's words with yours, you just did. I'm just curious about how useful cannot mean necessary. I expect you to explain that.

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

And you want me to do exactly what about that?

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

Oh really? How exactly?

Goshen360:

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.

I did? Let's see if the next issue below cannot help us see if indeed I did or didn't, shall we?

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.

When you see a neighbor's wife and she appeals to you but you do not go to bed with her, are you refusing to commit adultery because the Law says that you should not, that is, out of obligation, or because there is that within you that does not agreee with such a thing, that is, your nature as a Christian does not allow it?

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.

Goshen, was that text directed? Was it not about a specific need that they collected money for? It was just an instance of the practice of the Church to collect money. It proves that the Church practiced collecting money for need. It does not provethat she never collects tithes.

Tithes are by nature collected together. Whether or not in your opinion tithes are collected in the Church does not change the fact that tithes are collected together. Therefore, until you can show that tithes contradict the New Covenant, the descriptions, "collections" and "material blessings" cover tithes as well.

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.

Under the New Covenant, there is no obligation, Goshen my brother, therefore, tithes are free will giving.

When I give my tithes in church, it is out of love for the Lord, for His commandment, for those who serve in His work, for His work itself and for the poor.

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?

When something is a principle, then it is unchanging foundation that justifies some activities and condemns others. Tithing is actually a statement. You know, I believe it's a statement you know quite well, Goshen, because you were once making an issue of the Gospel in the Old Covenant. If you looked carefully at the old pattern, you'd see that tithing is a statement of acknowledgment of the beneficence of some person or power to whom one feels indebted for their good fortune.

The tenth is a portion given as gratitude to the one who has sustained one in his ways and endeavors. We give the tenth, my friend, not to pastors or the poor or the Levites or the High Priest, but to the Lord God. And it is He Who decides what He wants done with it. It is His Will that those whom He has taken exclusively into His service who devote every instant of their lives to ministering to Him and working to serve His house and the poor who cannot care for themselves be maintained by this portion that He receives as a beneficent King.

If you read, my brother, and think about what I have just said, you will understand because I just covered Genesis to, at least, Timothy in what I said up there.

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!

What have I changed, Goshen? Under the law, we're not to commit adultery. Now that we're no longer under the law, is adultery no more sin? Obviously, if we do not commit adultery, it is not only because the law commands that we do not but because it has become our intrinsic nature to eschew adultery, do you not agree?

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.

What are you rebuking me for here, Goshen? An expression of my desire to keep us focused on the issue?

musKeeto: 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..

Oh reallt? Atheists have been able to stick a charge of dishonesty to me ever? If wishes were cars, atheists would drive Rolls!

What is it that has you always on Christian threads, by the way? You miss a warm hearth and the laughter and craziness of having siblings and the joy of having a real Father looking out for you and fixing you real good when you mess up? I thought atheists were confident of their ability to survive in the wild and out in the cold all by themselves.

Goshen360:

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!

I asked a question in that part of my post, Goshen. In responding to it, you obliged yourself to answering it or addressing it somehow.

First, I did not exactly say that Jesus and His disciples took tithing for granted as an eternal principle although I know that they did. I asked the question as a hypothetical. Now if you were to answer that Jesus would have gone on to give lessons on tithing in that particular Scripture even though they all took for granted that tithing is an eternal principle, you'd have to explain why. If you said instead that He wouldn't have and proved why He would not, you would then have every right to ask me if I believed that Jesus and His disciples took for granted that tithing is an eternal principle and how it was so.

But if you don't answer me or show my question to be wrong somehow, I can't say anything about tithing being an eternal principle or not. However, in my previous post, I have already done a bit of the showing.

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?

1. When I obey God freely of my own will, I fulfill the command but I also do what comes out of my own heart, that is, what I am not compelled to do but what I want to and love to do.

2. The passage in 2 Corinthians 9 was about ministration to the saints, not to those who labor for us spiritually. However, do you remember that it is a command in the Old Covenant to take care of those of our number who are needy or poor?

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?

Show me please how Hebrews 7 disanulled tithing.

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.

But under the New Covenant, we like to do the things that please God, we like to tithe, commandment or not.

Goshen360:

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?

@colored text: are you serious, Goshen? Was Aaron not the High Priest of the Old Covenant? Is there not a priesthood in the New? Is Jesus not the High Priest in the New? Is the Old not a pattern of the New? As a pattern or copy, was the Old not correspondent to the New? For that reason, did Aaron not correspond to Christ?

The whole nation of Israel corresponds to the One New Man (that is, Christ the Head and His Body, the Church). We are all of us kings and priests of the Most High, but there are ranks, portions, duties, callings among us and they are not all the same. Therefore, within the Body, there are those who are spiritually what the Levites and the priests were and those who who are what the rest of Israel was. And as I have said, Aaron was the type of Christ.

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.

As you said in your first response on this post of yours that I'm responding to, you were making a hypothetical and I know and knew it and have faithfully treated it as such. Your hypothetical made the wrong connections, that was why I came in. I have never said that you believe that Jesus is a tithe collector.

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.

It is not too hard for me at all. From Hebrews 7:8 that Bro Image123 provided, it really is Christ. I know that the counter-argument you might make and have probably made in succeeding posts is that Melchizedek was the one being spoken of in the preceding verses suggesting that he is still the subject in Hebrews 7:8. I do not contend with that at all. In fact, I'm inclined to agree. But Jesus was made a priest after the order of this same Melchizedek, was He not?

I'm sure you know that that means that His priesthood operates on the principles that the Scriptures ascribe to Melchizedek's. That further means that what is applicable to Melchizedek in his priesthood is also applicable to our Lord.

That is not my only argument though. As I have said before in my preceding posts, the tithe belongs to God. It is a statement of acknowledgement that we exist on His Grace. When we give it to the ministers in the Body, they are also to spend a tenth of what they receive in turn on the poor for whom the Lord takes personal and immediate responsibility. So, to remit to the Lord Jesus is to provide for the needy and the poor in our midst.

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.

I will correct your associations and interpretations if they are wrong, Goshen. Not only do I have a right to do so, I have a mandate to do so. If you do not like it, that is your problem.

Indeed according to the law nothing was said of Judah in association with the priesthood, but I don't see how that changes the principles of priesthood, do you? Is tithing not a prinviple of the priesthood? As such, even if it moves from one tribe to another, would it not move with everything associated with it? For instance, did our Lord not offer a sacrifice as High Priest? Why should He now be denied the tithes due to His Priesthood? Because it upsets you, Goshen?

.

Ihedinobi:
Oh reallt? Atheists have been able to stick a charge of dishonesty to me ever? If wishes were cars, atheists would drive Rolls!

Lol. How can anything stick to a liar?

Ihedinobi:
What is it that has you always on Christian threads, by the way? You miss a warm hearth and the laughter and craziness of having siblings and the joy of having a real Father looking out for you and fixing you real good when you mess up?

Yawn.. In case you've never noticed, you'd also find me on pagan threads, Grail message.. only the Muslim threads are spared from my buzzing.. don't feel so special yet...

Ihedinobi:
I thought atheists were confident of their ability to survive in the wild and out in the cold all by themselves.

It seems you're better than them at that, considering the position you've taken up on this thread..

Can you ignore me and face your lashing?

Lolz @ Pastor Kun's

debosky:

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

Good. Did you see Jesus instructing them or giving them lessons to pray when He sent them forth? In fact, was the focus of His lessons to them on prayer not how to pray rather than the need to pray?

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.

What do you mean by a form of giving? What do you think tithing is? And I didn't know about forms of prayer, what are they? And how exactly is something a principle while its forms are not?

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

Oh, it implies that and it is one of numerous places where tithing is implicitly spoken of in the New Testament.

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?

There aren't many things that annoy me in argument as dishonesty, debosky. And I do not think that you'd be deliberately playing that tack but what does the above mean? Do you seriously mean to say that because the law is a portrait of Christ, one has to be physically circumcised to be a Christian?

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

Now if the Law is the paper model, so to speak, of Christ, it will relate to paper where Christ will relate in the same manner to more enduring things, in this instance, brick and mortar.

This means that that physical circumcision that the Law contains corresponds or is a description of another reality. As described in the Scripture above, that circumcision is one of the heart, one of the Spirit. So, whereas the necessity to be circumcised in the foreskin has been done away with, the principle of circumcision yet abides. Only now, we're dealing with more abiding realities, so the circumcision we speak of is one of the heart. And this latter one is still circumcision, only of a greater reality than that of Moses.

To relate this to the issue just before this one, the Law described the reality of the cutting away of something in order to be numbered among the people of God. It used the "picture" of a cut-off foreskin to describe the deeper spiritual reality of the cutting away of the flesh by the Cross of Christ so that we may be made in the image of Christ.

Do you see then that the Law still described Christ without demanding physical circumcision for anyone to be a Christian?

Ihedinobi:

When you see a neighbor's wife and she appeals to you but you do not go to bed with her, are you refusing to commit adultery because the Law says that you should not, that is, out of obligation, or because there is that within you that does not agreee with such a thing, that is, your nature as a Christian does not allow it?

Ihedinobi, you're doing something here and I'm sorry to say, I don't like such kind of TRICKY discussion. When you used the statement "appealing" in which I responded to, it was within the context of tithe. That is, appealing to the givers to bring tithe BUT now, you changed that context to a neighbours's wife appealing to me to sleep with her. I don't like such discussion please. That's that, I will respond to this on the same where you talked about same content in one of your response.

Ihedinobi:

1. Goshen, was that text directed? Was it not about a specific need that they collected money for? It was just an instance of the practice of the Church to collect money. It proves that the Church practiced collecting money for need. It does not provethat she never collects tithes.

2. Tithes are by nature collected together. Whether or not in your opinion tithes are collected in the Church does not change the fact that tithes are collected together. Therefore, until you can show that tithes contradict the New Covenant, the descriptions, "collections" and "material blessings" cover tithes as well.

1. Oh yes, it was an "instance" right? And such instance becomes an example to Christians. Was it also an "instance" to the Galatians Church?

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. 1 Corinthians 16:1

2. Tithes are by nature collected together...I don't understand the context of this your statement and since you're becoming too tricky to deal with, then I demand you explain what you mean by tithe being a collection BY NATURE. Then I will respond properly.

Whether or not in your opinion tithes are collected in the Church does not change the fact that tithes are collected together. Therefore, until you can show that tithes contradict the New Covenant, the descriptions, "collections" and "material blessings" cover tithes as well.

This is exactly where you and your tithe teachers or lemme say you in particular are REMIXING what was explicitly stated out. You are saying because there are collections in the NT, then it must include tithe BUT everywhere tithe was commanded or not in the OT & NT, the word 'tithe' is explicitly mentioned. This is not my opinion and can never be but the word of God. I have shown you where Christ's commandment for those who preach the gospel should be taken care of by free-will giving of those who are being taught. That's very clear from scriptures and NO WHERE DOES IT MENTION TITHE.....which in this context a fixed 10% from income of people who are taught the word.

Until I show that tithe contradict the NT description of collections? Really? Haven't I showed you in all this argument? Okay, for clarity purpose, lemme me show you again and let's see how you trick or twist this?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7

The NT says, the giving that we do should be what we have purposed in our heart to give NOT grudgingly or of NECESSITY. That word necessity is the answer that contradict the OT testament way of tithing because tithe or tithing is by LAW...a COMMANDMENT. Now, watch this,

The word necessity is the Greek word, anagkē and from here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G318&t=KJV, 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.

From the above we understand it refers to the first usage and when taken back into the context of II Corinthians 9:7, it reads thus, that is, replace the word 'necessity' with the meaning,

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one's advantage, custom, argument.: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

When you people keep MIXING the Mosaic law with Christianity, that what you come up with. Tithing in scriptures is BY LAW COMMANDED and the the law that instituted the Levitical priesthood, the same law uphold them to get a tithe. Christian giving says or NEGATES, as you requested, the Mosaic tithing system - As we purpose in our heart, so we give not as imposed by the law either to the duty of Levitical priesthood or even by custom, either Jewish custom or whatever custom is may be. This is very simple.

Ihedinobi:

Under the New Covenant, there is no obligation, Goshen my brother, therefore, tithes are free will giving.

When I give my tithes in church, it is out of love for the Lord, for His commandment, for those who serve in His work, for His work itself and for the poor.

A free will is born out of the heart of the giver, that is what the giver purposed in his heart, not what is compulsory or commanded as a FIXED rate or PERCENTAGE. Tithe is a fixed 10%, can't you get a simple definition? A free will can be today or this week 1% or 2 or 3 etc or even in some days\week be 11% or 12, 13 etc. The confusion is mixing what is said under the OT and the NT together.

Okay, if you're gonna give your tithe out of love, for his COMMANDMENT? You see how I say you are too tricky? Then, where in the New Testament does Christ or the Apostles COMMANDED tithe to Christians? And please remember to show it to us because the word 'tithe' must surface in such COMMANDMENT.

Ihedinobi:

When something is a principle, then it is unchanging foundation that justifies some activities and condemns others. Tithing is actually a statement. You know, I believe it's a statement you know quite well, Goshen, because you were once making an issue of the Gospel in the Old Covenant. If you looked carefully at the old pattern, you'd see that tithing is a statement of acknowledgment of the beneficence of some person or power to whom one feels indebted for their good fortune.

The tenth is a portion given as gratitude to the one who has sustained one in his ways and endeavors. We give the tenth, my friend, not to pastors or the poor or the Levites or the High Priest, but to the Lord God. And it is He Who decides what He wants done with it. It is His Will that those whom He has taken exclusively into His service who devote every instant of their lives to ministering to Him and working to serve His house and the poor who cannot care for themselves be maintained by this portion that He receives as a beneficent King.

If you read, my brother, and think about what I have just said, you will understand because I just covered Genesis to, at least, Timothy in what I said up there.

This is one thing with tithe people. God says it's a commandment, you people say it's a principle. Ihedinobi, go and check dictionary of any kind, principles is NOT THE SAME AS commandments. I don't have too much to say to you on this. And what is it if you cover Genesis to Revelation? What has that got to do with this? Does everything in Genesis APPLY to Christians? Why don't you start creating the world again then? Or why don't you continue to kill animals for sins? Why would you say Christ had done that for you and leave the rest. Why don't you continue to stone people to death because it's written in the Mosaic law? because you covered genesis to revelation.

Ihedinobi:

What have I changed, Goshen? Under the law, we're not to commit adultery. Now that we're no longer under the law, is adultery no more sin? Obviously, if we do not commit adultery, it is not only because the law commands that we do not but because it has become our intrinsic nature to eschew adultery, do you not agree?

Now, here is where I said I was gonna reply you on the first I replied above. The law had first said thou shall not commit adultery, covet etc. This is where you confuse what is is put in us internally with the holy Spirit. You keep saying the law is no longer written on stones but put within us. That's the confusion. The law had taught me that adultery is not good and when my neigbour's wife as you said appealed to me, it is no longer the law that tells me adultery is not good, IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT. I just did this same explanation here: https://www.nairaland.com/1278024/antagonists-gospel-infinite-grace-answer/12#15668651 Please go through that explanation because it's related to the comments here. I cannot quote every here again.

Ihedinobi:

What are you rebuking me for here, Goshen? An expression of my desire to keep us focused on the issue?

I'm not rebuking you for anything other than to stop being tricky and stop applying what was said to those who preach the gospel as commanded by the Lord to what was said to those who minister at the altar and those who minister at the temple. You are applying what was said and directed at one group to another and mixing the whole thing up. When Jesus said to those he sent to preach, did the Lord commanded that they should receive WHATEVER THEY ARE GIVEN by using the word TITHE? This is the question you keep dodging. That's why I said in that context, you are going beyond what was said to one group or the other and you are going beyond what is written.

I will respond to your other post latter in the day or week if I'm chanced. And taken you to where you said I should show you from Hebrews 7 how or where tithe is abolished. We will get there later. I'm going for my daily bread for now.

musKeeto:
Lol. How can anything stick to a liar?

Oh, are you saying that it is because of the crystal honesty of you atheists that I have kept sticking charges of dishonesty to you?

Incredible reasoning as always, musKeeto.

Yawn.. In case you've never noticed, you'd also find me on pagan threads, Grail message.. only the Muslim threads are spared from my buzzing.. don't feel so special yet...

I've never quite needed you to feel special, man. And since I don't hang out on those other threads, I didn't know that you hung out there. However, aren't you making my poimt for me? Why do you need to hang out withpeople who believe something when you believe nothing? The emptiness getting to you?

It seems you're better than them at that, considering the position you've taken up on this thread..

Can you ignore me and face your lashing?

Who's "them"? You don't wanna identify with your "brothers"? Poor musKeeto.

Anyway, I'm not alone on this thread. I'm fighting for my brothers and my sisters. Whether they realize it or not is inconsequential to me. Every seed I sow today is a mighty tree yielding an abundance of fruit onto eternity. I can wait.

Nawa o, this tithe debate no go end I've been seeing it on my home page now like everytime I refresh my page. Hmmm, its all good though.

Ihedinobi:
blah blah blah....

Ignoring me is never an option for you, is it?

Goshen360:

Okay, let's put it this way, if it was Jesus that the whole passage is talking about according to verse 13, then the question is, was it Jesus that received tithe from Abraham? You can even put it (receiveth) in your present continuous if you want to answer the question.

one step at a time, no rush Gosh. Did verse 13 say that the passage is talking about Jesus? Two, did you eventually check the original to confirm that there is no name in verse 8?

musKeeto:
Ignoring me is never an option for you, is it?

No more than ignoring me is one for you, mon ami.

Image123:
one step at a time, no rush Gosh. Did verse 13 say that the passage is talking about Jesus? Two, did you eventually check the original to confirm that there is no name in verse 8?

Because you don't understand verse 13, that's why you're also confused on verse 8 or deliberately basterdizing the context. Answer my question, and we take it one by one. Who received tithe from Abraham? Christ or Melchizedek. When you answer that, then I will explain what verse 13 is saying.

Goshen360:

Ihedinobi, you're doing something here and I'm sorry to say, I don't like such kind of TRICKY discussion. When you used the statement "appealing" in which I responded to, it was within the context of tithe. That is, appealing to the givers to bring tithe BUT now, you changed that context to a neighbours's wife appealing to me to sleep with her. I don't like such discussion please. That's that, I will respond to this on the same where you talked about same content in one of your response.

The word "appeals" also means "pleases" or "attracts". That's the meaning I was using although your understanding of it is still ok for our discussion. That's by the way though.

Now, Goshen, listen to me, it is not a small thing to makeaccusations. I should know, I make accusations myself. Do not even let yourself continue to think that what you need to do to shut me up is accuse me of trickery. I am abiding it because I'm confident that you do what you do and say what you say in ignorance. If you were being deliberate, you would have promptly come under judgment.

Now, what is the issue here? That I changed contexts? Is that it? On what basis have you been rejecting tithing? Is it not on the basis that tithing "belongs" in the Law? What did I do here? Did I not produce another thing that "belongs" in the Law but which maintains relevance under the New Covenant in order to show you that "belonging" in the Law is not a sufficient reason to reject something. It's up to you to show me that there is a difference between the issue of adultery and tithing as provisions of the Law "carried over" into the New Covenant, if you can find it.

1. Oh yes, it was an "instance" right? And such instance becomes an example to Christians. Was it also an "instance" to the Galatians Church?

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. 1 Corinthians 16:1

What is your quarrel here, Goshen? Does the fact that churches collected money to send to their brethren in need prove that tithes were never collected?

2. Tithes are by nature collected together...I don't understand the context of this your statement and since you're becoming too tricky to deal with, then I demand you explain what you mean by tithe being a collection BY NATURE. Then I will respond properly.

Whether or not in your opinion tithes are collected in the Church does not change the fact that tithes are collected together. Therefore, until you can show that tithes contradict the New Covenant, the descriptions, "collections" and "material blessings" cover tithes as well.

This is exactly where you and your tithe teachers or lemme say you in particular are REMIXING what was explicitly stated out. You are saying because there are collections in the NT, then it must include tithe BUT everywhere tithe was commanded or not in the OT & NT, the word 'tithe' is explicitly mentioned. This is not my opinion and can never be but the word of God. I have shown you where Christ's commandment for those who preach the gospel should be taken care of by free-will giving of those who are being taught. That's very clear from scriptures and NO WHERE DOES IT MENTION TITHE.....which in this context a fixed 10% from income of people who are taught the word.

I certainly didn't say that tithes must be part of the collections everywhere collections were mentioned in the Scriptures, Goshen. I have maintained that tithes, like free donations and all manner of gifts, are collected as well. Therefore, it is reasonable to posit that those who received the material things, gifts etc also received the tithes.

Until I show that tithe contradict the NT description of collections? Really? Haven't I showed you in all this argument? Okay, for clarity purpose, lemme me show you again and let's see how you trick or twist this?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7

The NT says, the giving that we do should be what we have purposed in our heart to give NOT grudgingly or of NECESSITY. That word necessity is the answer that contradict the OT testament way of tithing because tithe or tithing is by LAW...a COMMANDMENT. Now, watch this,

The word necessity is the Greek word, anagkē and from here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G318&t=KJV, 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.

From the above we understand it refers to the first usage and when taken back into the context of II Corinthians 9:7, it reads thus, that is, replace the word 'necessity' with the meaning,

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one's advantage, custom, argument.: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

This is not the first time or post in which you're making this argument. I've already answered it. No sense repeating myself here.

When you people keep MIXING the Mosaic law with Christianity, that what you come up with. Tithing in scriptures is BY LAW COMMANDED and the the law that instituted the Levitical priesthood, the same law uphold them to get a tithe. Christian giving says or NEGATES, as you requested, the Mosaic tithing system - As we purpose in our heart, so we give not as imposed by the law either to the duty of Levitical priesthood or even by custom, either Jewish custom or whatever custom is may be. This is very simple.

As I have said before, faithfulness in marriage is commanded in the law, is that also negated in Christian marriage?

A free will is born out of the heart of the giver, that is what the giver purposed in his heart, not what is compulsory or commanded as a FIXED rate or PERCENTAGE. Tithe is a fixed 10%, can't you get a simple definition? A free will can be today or this week 1% or 2 or 3 etc or even in some days\week be 11% or 12, 13 etc. The confusion is mixing what is said under the OT and the NT together.

Me, I freely and joyfully give a tenth, as exact a tenth as I can manage it. Then, I add to that anything more that I have. I obey God freely without compulsion just like our Lord Jesus freely went to the Cross in obedience to His Father's Will and yet without any manner of compulsion whatsoever.

Okay, if you're gonna give your tithe out of love, for his COMMANDMENT? You see how I say you are too tricky? Then, where in the New Testament does Christ or the Apostles COMMANDED tithe to Christians? And please remember to show it to us because the word 'tithe' must surface in such COMMANDMENT.

"The worker is worthy of His wage".

This is one thing with tithe people. God says it's a commandment, you people say it's a principle. Ihedinobi, go and check dictionary of any kind, principles is NOT THE SAME AS commandments. I don't have too much to say to you on this. And what is it if you cover Genesis to Revelation? What has that got to do with this? Does everything in Genesis APPLY to Christians? Why don't you start creating the world again then? Or why don't you continue to kill animals for sins? Why would you say Christ had done that for you and leave the rest. Why don't you continue to stone people to death because it's written in the Mosaic law? because you covered genesis to revelation.

I'm not killing animals today because the Perfect Sacrifice has been made.

Yes, everything in Genesis is meant for the Christian.

What's the difference between principles and commandments?

Now, here is where I said I was gonna reply you on the first I replied above. The law had first said thou shall not commit adultery, covet etc. This is where you confuse what is is put in us internally with the holy Spirit. You keep saying the law is no longer written on stones but put within us. That's the confusion. The law had taught me that adultery is not good and when my neigbour's wife as you said appealed to me, it is no longer the law that tells me adultery is not good, IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT. I just did this same explanation here: https://www.nairaland.com/1278024/antagonists-gospel-infinite-grace-answer/12#15668651 Please go through that explanation because it's related to the comments here. I cannot quote every here again.

I think I get what you're saying: that theHoly Spirit has replaced the Law, no? And you ended up saying that He says the same thing which the Law said. Now isn't that just my point? That however loud you scream that the Law has passed away, you are still fulfilling it, are you not?

Now, when the Holy Ghost also condemns adultery as the Law did, why should He not uphold and applaud tithing as it did as well?

I'm not rebuking you for anything other than to stop being tricky and stop applying what was said to those who preach the gospel as commanded by the Lord to what was said to those who minister at the altar and those who minister at the temple. You are applying what was said and directed at one group to another and mixing the whole thing up. When Jesus said to those he sent to preach, did the Lord commanded that they should receive WHATEVER THEY ARE GIVEN by using the word TITHE? This is the question you keep dodging. That's why I said in that context, you are going beyond what was said to one group or the other and you are going beyond what is written.

So you were rebuking me for expressing my wish to focus on the topic because that wish was tricky too?

I will respond to your other post latter in the day or week if I'm chanced. And taken you to where you said I should show you from Hebrews 7 how or where tithe is abolished. We will get there later. I'm going for my daily bread for now.

As you please.

Ihedinobi:
Good. Did you see Jesus instructing them or giving them lessons to pray when He sent them forth? In fact, was the focus of His lessons to them on prayer not how to pray rather than the need to pray?

Jesus exhorted them to pray with him, he taught them how to pray, he taught them to have faith when they prayed. Copious references that leaves you in no doubt it was taken for granted Even if we go along with your hair-splitting and focus on the 'how' - if they took tithing for granted, why didn't Jesus teach them 'how' to tithe since he taught them how to pray?

Your 'taken for granted' hypothesis has no basis.

What do you mean by a form of giving?

I mean you can give by tithing on a regular basis, and in other ways as well - giving in response to a need, giving as you decide to at that particular moment, etc.

And I didn't know about forms of prayer, what are they?

You're moving off topic here, but I'll oblige - you can pray in a congregation in language all can understand. You can pray privately in tongues, you can pray silently on the spot when faced with a difficult situation, etc.

And how exactly is something a principle while its forms are not?

This is elementary - a principle is an overarching 'rationale' if you want, while the specific form is how you fulfil/carry out that principle. One may choose to implement the principle in a variety of ways, but no single one of those ways is mandatory.

I don't think I'm inclined to continue this hypothetical discussion on whether it was taken for granted - all we have here is 'if' tithing was taken for granted, with no evidence whatsoever supporting this assertion.

Oh, it implies that and it is one of numerous places where tithing is implicitly spoken of in the New Testament.

How do you read it to imply Paul collected tithes? Please explain based on what is written in Hebrews.

There aren't many things that annoy me in argument as dishonesty, debosky. And I do not think that you'd be deliberately playing that tack but what does the above mean? Do you seriously mean to say that because the law is a portrait of Christ, one has to be physically circumcised to be a Christian?

That is what you are saying not me. How can you say the law describes how a Christian behaves without compulsion and mean anything else? How can you say the law describes how God wants Christians to behave and say that Christian do not have to be physically circumcised? Isn't it the law that requires physical circumcision? For emphasis, this is what you said:

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.

Simply put, Christians physically circumcise themselves because that's how they behave by nature without compulsion - and oh by the way, that's what the law describes. If you don't do what it describes, how does the description fit you?

Now if the Law is the paper model, so to speak, of Christ, it will relate to paper where Christ will relate in the same manner to more enduring things, in this instance, brick and mortar.

Relating 'in the same manner' is completely different from 'describing the Christian' don't you think? The law says be physically circumcised - if this is a description of a Christian, then how can a Christian not be physically circumcised? I hope you see the issue with your earlier assertion now.

This means that that physical circumcision that the Law contains corresponds or is a description of another reality. As described in the Scripture above, that circumcision is one of the heart, one of the Spirit. So, whereas the necessity to be circumcised in the foreskin has been done away with, the principle of circumcision yet abides. Only now, we're dealing with more abiding realities, so the circumcision we speak of is one of the heart. And this latter one is still circumcision, only of a greater reality than that of Moses.

Like I said, corresponding to another reality is different from describing how we behave.

Do you see then that the Law still described Christ without demanding physical circumcision for anyone to be a Christian?

No, because Christ does not require physical circumcision - which is what the law describes. Jesus did not say the law described him, he said he came to fulfil the law - i.e. the intention of the law, not its description.

If this is what you are arguing, then we should also consider 'physical tithing' as done away with correct? After all, tithing under the law should simply be a description of another reality?

debosky:

Jesus exhorted them to pray with him, he taught them how to pray, he taught them to have faith when they prayed. Copious references that leaves you in no doubt it was taken for granted Even if we go along with your hair-splitting and focus on the 'how' - if they took tithing for granted, why didn't Jesus teach them 'how' to tithe since he taught them how to pray?

Your 'taken for granted' hypothesis has no basis.

Three things are consequent upon this response to my post:

1. You don't have an answer to whether Jesus gave them lessons on prayer as He sent them forth.

2. You insist that Jesus should have mentioned tithes and I say He probably didn't mention it specifically because they all took it for granted. You mention prayer as a counter because it's an eternal principle too but Jesus still taught them on it. Well, first He said nothing about it in the same Scripture we're dealing with. Secondly, outside of that Scripture, all He taught in relation to prayer was not at all what prayer is as a principle but the practice of it. Now, why would He need to teach the practice of tithing? Tithing is giving God a tenth as acknowledgment of His beneficence, what more does one need in teaching on its practice there? But prayer? That's a world of difficulty even for Christians. That one should speak to God is a given, how one must do so is a mind-boggling issue.

Therefore, the absence of teaching on the practice of tithing in comparison to prayer does not prove that Jesus and His disciples did not take for granted that it is an eternal principle.

3. One thing you have been missing: tithing was how the ministers of God were paid. Now, in this Scripture in Matthew 10 around which our discussions have been revolving, our Lord says to His disciples as He sends them forth that they were not to provide for themselves but were to look for their sustenance at the hands of those whom they served for, said He, "the workman is worthy of his meat". That effectively made them workmen for God entitling them to that which God claims for Himself - the tenth.

I mean you can give by tithing on a regular basis, and in other ways as well - giving in response to a need, giving as you decide to at that particular moment, etc.

Are there any among these forms that are principles or are they all not principles?

You're moving off topic here, but I'll oblige - you can pray in a congregation in language all can understand. You can pray privately in tongues, you can pray silently on the spot when faced with a difficult situation, etc.

Like you said, it's somewhat off-topic although it might ultimately be relevant. But I'll leave it be.

This is elementary - a principle is an overarching 'rationale' if you want, while the specific form is how you fulfil/carry out that principle. One may choose to implement the principle in a variety of ways, but no single one of those ways is mandatory.

I see. Now, would you say that it is a principle to always acknowledge the Grace that benefits us? Is it an overarching rationale to acknowledge our relationship with God as pensioners upon His Grace? If it is, is God free to fix a particular way in which this relationship is eternally recognized and being unchanging to fix it so forever?

I don't think I'm inclined to continue this hypothetical discussion on whether it was taken for granted - all we have here is 'if' tithing was taken for granted, with no evidence whatsoever supporting this assertion.

Ok. However, if indeed they took it for granted then it would explain why Jesus said nothing extensive in particular relation to it. And I think I've given some evidence now that you can examine.

How do you read it to imply Paul collected tithes? Please explain based on what is written in Hebrews.

If it spoke of Jesus, then it also spoke of His workers.

That is what you are saying not me. How can you say *the law describes how a Christian behaves without compulsion* and mean anything else? How can you say the law describes how God wants Christians to behave and say that Christian do not have to be physically circumcised? Isn't it the law that requires physical circumcision? For emphasis, this is what you said:

*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." *

Simply put, Christians physically circumcise themselves because that's how they behave by nature without compulsion - and oh by the way, that's what the law describes. If you don't do what it describes, how does the description fit you?

I see how you have fixed your reasoning concerning this. Jesus taught a lot of things, that is, described great spiritual truths using parables like a farmer scattering seed. I don't believe that because He did so, you suppose that Jesus is actually a human farmer walking all over throwing physical seeds about. But you do understand the spiritual truths He was describing using those parables, don't you?

Why then must a reference to the Law as a description of Christ mean that Christ is physical circumcision, washing of hands etc?

Relating 'in the same manner' is completely different from 'describing the Christian' don't you think? The law says be physically circumcised - if this is a description of a Christian, then how can a Christian not be physically circumcised? I hope you see the issue with your earlier assertion now.


Like I said, corresponding to another reality is different from describing how we behave. 


No, because Christ does not require physical circumcision - which is what the law describes. Jesus did not say the law described him, he said he came to fulfil the law - i.e. the intention of the law, not its description. 

If this is what you are arguing, then we should also consider 'physical tithing' as done away with correct? After all, tithing under the law should simply be a description of another reality?

I really wondered if it might be dishonesty but I don't think it was. I think you're only stuck on this issue. Anyway, Scriptures themselves say that the Law was patterned after Christ, thus it must describe Him perfectly. I've already said that to you before, I believe.

As for tithing, under the Old Covenant, the commandment of tithing was to give the tenth to one tribe of Israel dedicated to the service of the Lord. There is a spiritual reality that it described and that is that thpse who serve in the Lord's House (the Church) are maintained by the Church and that that by which they are maintained is that which is due to the Lord as a beneficent King upon Whose Graces we live. Of course there's more to it but this will suffice for now.

Goshen360:

Because you don't understand verse 13, that's why you're also confused on verse 8 or deliberately basterdizing the context. Answer my question, and we take it one by one. Who received tithe from Abraham? Christ or Melchizedek. When you answer that, then I will explain what verse 13 is saying.

Christ and Melchi, we already know what verse 13 is saying except you want to complicate it as you've being some verses these days. You can answer the questions i asked you instead.

Ihedinobi: Three things are consequent upon this response to my post:
1. You don't have an answer to whether Jesus gave them lessons on prayer as He sent them forth.

An answer is not required to a quite pointless strawman question - the premise has never been on what instructions were given when Jesus sent the apostles forth. It has been on asking you for evidence supporting your baseless assertion that tithing was taken for granted. Jesus taught copiously on prayer - whether it was ‘how’ or not, so did the disciples. Tithing is not given the same treatment.

2. Now, why would He need to teach the practice of tithing? Tithing is giving God a tenth as acknowledgment of His beneficence, what more does one need in teaching on its practice there? But prayer? That's a world of difficulty even for Christians. That one should speak to God is a given, how one must do so is a mind-boggling issue.

What more does one need?? God deemed it fit to give detailed instruction on tithing even to those who, through Abram, had knowledge of the practice. It is therefore baseless - based on scriptural example - to say nothing else is needed to teach on tithing. This view is even more ridiculous when we consider that Gentiles - with no pre-knowledge of tithing - would have required specific instructions how to tithe if it was an eternal principle. Were they to do what the Jews ‘took for granted’ (by the Law) and go to Jerusalem with their agricultural produce? Were they to give their pastors? Were they to take a break at the 7th year? Which of the tithes should be practiced - which should be discarded?

Furthermore, the fact that Jesus taught his disciples copiously on giving (and didn’t teach them once to tithe) brings your assertion into further disrepute.

Therefore, the absence of teaching on the practice of tithing in comparison to prayer does not prove that Jesus and His disciples did not take for granted that it is an eternal principle.

You have provided no evidence that it is an eternal principle - and a comparison with other eternal principles shows that tithing fails the test. Your assertion that nothing needs to be taught is also baseless as stated above.

3. One thing you have been missing: tithing was how the ministers of God were paid. Now, in this Scripture in Matthew 10 around which our discussions have been revolving, our Lord says to His disciples as He sends them forth that they were not to provide for themselves but were to look for their sustenance at the hands of those whom they served for, said He, "the workman is worthy of his meat". That effectively made them workmen for God entitling them to that which God claims for Himself - the tenth.

Again, you are over-extending at best, and outright misrepresenting scripture at worst. The disciples were sent to the Jews in Matthew 10 correct? Why would a Jew - with clear and detailed instructions on the tithe, and with the Levitical Priesthood still functioning - give this tenth to some preachers who came by to preach? There is no basis whatsoever to claim that they were claiming/entitled to the tenth.

We have copious examples in the OT (and in the NT) of people supporting preachers, with NO reference to the tithe being involved - tithe was restricted to laid down instruction in the law and no further. Elisha was supported by the Shunnamite woman - he was a prophet and a workman of God, yet he never received tithe from her. There is NO BASIS for your assertion here.

Are there any among these forms that are principles or are they all not principles?

They are not principles - they are forms. Giving is the principle - how you give are forms which fulfill the principle.

I see. Now, would you say that it is a principle to always acknowledge the Grace that benefits us? Is it an overarching rationale to acknowledge our relationship with God as pensioners upon His Grace?

Yes to both questions.

If it is, is God free to fix a particular way in which this relationship is eternally recognized and being unchanging to fix it so forever?

Of course God is free to do so - the question is whether he has indeed done so. Abram - the first recorded ‘tither’ did so voluntarily - God did not fix anything. His descendant Jacob proposed tithing to God - God did not fix it. Only in the Law did God fix tithing, but he did so with reference to a specific institution - the Levitical Priesthood - which has now ceased to exist. He also gave strict instructions on what should be tithed - agricultural produce from the promised land - which is not applicable to Christians either.

Therefore the ‘fixed’ element has passed away - one may tithe as a result of a personal decision, but there is no fix required by God - this has passed away with the passing of the Levitical Priesthood.

Ihedinobi:
If it spoke of Jesus, then it also spoke of His workers.

You seem to be equivocating with your ‘ifs’ again - who do you consider it speaking of?

I see how you have fixed your reasoning concerning this. Jesus taught a lot of things, that is, described great spiritual truths using parables like a farmer scattering seed. I don't believe that because He did so, you suppose that what Jesus is actually a human farmer walking all over throwing physical seeds about. But you do understand the spiritual truths He was describing using those parables, don't you?
Why then must a reference to the Law as a description of Christ mean that Christ is physical circumcision, washing of hands etc?

A parable is just that - a parable. Its purpose is clearly defined in its name. A parable is not a ‘description of how a Christian behaves without compulsion’ as you say the Law is - it is a teaching tool. This analogy does not support your argument in any way as parables are not equivalent to the law in any sense.

If you posit that the Law describes a Christian ‘perfectly’, then you do not ‘do away’ with any aspects of perfection. I will speak more about this wrong characterization of the Law a s describing Jesus perfectly in the next paragraph.

I really wondered if it might be dishonesty but I don't think it was. I think you're only stuck on this issue. Anyway, Scriptures themselves say that the Law was patterned after Christ, thus it must describe Him perfectly. I've already said that to you before, I believe.

No - it cannot describe him perfectly. Nothing can describe him perfectly. Even the bible says in Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

If Jesus is a BETTER hope (i.e. better than the Law), then the Law CANNOT describe Jesus perfectly. If it does, then there will be no need for any aspects of it to be ‘done away with’ as you say physical circumcision has been.

As for tithing, under the Old Covenant, the commandment of tithing was to give the tenth to one tribe of Israel dedicated to the service of the Lord. There is a spiritual reality that it described and that is that those who serve in the Lord's House (the Church) are maintained by the Church

I agree on this.

and that that by which they are maintained is that which is due to the Lord as a beneficent King upon Whose Graces we live. Of course there's more to it but this will suffice for now.

No - everything belongs to God and the Christian belongs to God. Giving is an expression of gratitude for God’s goodness and grace, not a ‘payment’ of what is ‘due’ to God - all talk of what is ‘due’ to God when it comes to giving is legalistic/law based thinking.

We give to support those who labour for God, and we should do so considering how God has blessed us, and according to the need - not according to some fixed percentage dolled up as ‘what is due to the Lord’.

you all tolerating a certain fraud abi?

Some one is displaying mental cunningness with words devoid of scriptural foothing and strengh. What that is not written.

When someone keeps going beyond what is written he makes/marks out h(im)er self as inconsequential.

How obvious can it get?

Some people dont have respect for the scriptures vis-a-vis God, just because they claim to have the "spirit", (definitely) not God's holy spirit since the spirit of God cannot go against the word of God or rubbish it without blinking an eye lid.

All those gymnastics for collecting of tithe is a skill the bible writers did not have, that is why they forgot to demand that christians pay Tithe in the NT i supposed, maybe the apostles lacked the "real holy spirit" of God.

Why do you people have/show consideration for someone lacking regard/respect for the word of God?

Should the opinion of such a person not be termed as useless and him ignored?

"By their fruit we shall know them" is still written in the bible in the instance that you all have forgotten, and what fruit is that (mr "collect" ) person showing on this issue?

Is he not being dishonest? Keep rubbing him veseline if you like then.

(that is why i admire frosbel, he would have called out such a person for who he is ).

@Gosh
We both know that your fans fall headlong for your copious posts like they've done. but you know i'm your friend, not just your fan, so lemme help you and others.

The crux of the matter here is tithe. You added collections and material blessings. I don't understand why you did that but since you mentioned those two, we shall treat them also with the subject of tithe\tithing. First, there's no where in the scripture you quoted that tithe is mentioned specifically. The word of God is greater than we all. If Paul the Apostle wanted to mean or write about tithe to the Church, he would have mentioned it by the Spirit of God. You're simply going beyond what is written and trynna force your tithe into that context like those we know on this forum.

till tomorrow, there is no scripture, not even one, that speaks against tithes. No apostle ever attacked it or preached against it. Like m.k.o 2005 reminded us, there were Bible/apostolic teachings 'seemingly' against sabbath and circumcision directly, where is the scripture against tithe? Did the apostles forget and you are the one that remembers?

2. Collection in the New Testament is not from the brethren go to those who labor spiritually for the others as you wrongly or falsely claim; it is for the poor among the early church and saints. Doesn't it bother you the church had gone away from the truth of the Apostolic teachings today? Look at the rate of poverty among many churches, folks living less than $2 per day. Does many churches collect for the poor or for themselves?

Like Ihedinobi asked, what is a collection? Who is the church? Collection is simply gathering or taking of donations. That you are dubiously looking for the exact word 'collection' in the Bible is a indicator of how low you have sunk to make your point. Any offering given at the same time is a collection.

3. Material blessings? YES! Those who labor spiritually for the others in the word are expected to benefit the materials things. This truth we cannot argue from the word of God but the issue here is, are these material blessings that is to be given to or shared with those who labour spiritually suppose to be or instructed to be tithe or from tithe of others? That's what we seek to address from the scriptures you quoted above.

Tithing is one form of material blessing, true or false?

Now, you quoted 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 with emphasis on verses 13-14 and perhaps presented it as though it speaks of tithe in that context.

If i recall correctly, he presented it(the passage) as showing that ministers should live of the things of the gospel. You were the one asking who, now he answered who, and you decide to turn it to what. pay attention

The problem with many of us is, when we read scriptures, we don't question some things. When I say, question the scriptures, I don't mean it in the negative way. I mean it in the positive so that such questioning can trigger more study or findings. Now, lemme me do justice....please note, tithe as a word did not appear in that text and since it does not, it cannot be assumed to mean tithe.

Were you the one that quoted from Galatians 1 and Hebrews 10 to speak against tithe, or you were in your Romans 7 mode then?

Whenever an old testament scriptures is referenced in the new, a good bible student will always find where it was written in the old and apply it into the context of where the new testament made such quotation(s).

New International Version (©2011)

Don't you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?

In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14

i wait still for the relevance of the expositions and underlinings given in this original by you.

In verse 13, is a reference to group #1, THOSE WHO SERVE IN THE TEMPLE...and how do they get their food? The context answers, ...from the temple. Where is this in scriptures from the Old Testament?

New International Version (©2011)
The Levitical priests--indeed, the whole tribe of Levi--are to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel. They shall live on the food offerings presented to the LORD, for that is their inheritance. Deuteronomy 18:1

...please note that those who serve in the TEMPLE are different from those who serve at the ALTAR but the same tribe of Levi or Levitical priesthood. Hence, the two-in-one reference to TEMPLE and ALTAR.

And the point is? Do you realise that that verse says that it is THEIR RIGHT? They do not apologize for it, it's not a special aid or privilege/gift. They have no allotment, no other work, therefore they shall live on the food offerings presented to the Lord. And in other passages, it is shown that more than these, all offering that is God's is theirs. And tithe is theirs, no?

In the same verse 13, is a reference to the #1(b) groups - Those who serve at the altar and how do they get their food? Again, the context answers for itself, ...from what is shared from what is offered on the altar . Where is this in scriptures? Leviticus 7:1-8 is the answer - Please, everybody should read it. I can't do much quoting now but verses 5-7 says,

The priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering presented to the LORD. It is a guilt offering. Any male in a priest's family may eat it, but it must be eaten in the sanctuary area; it is most holy. The same law applies to both the sin offering and the guilt offering: They belong to the priest who makes atonement with them.

And what is so spectacular in verse 1-4 that you refused to quote for us?
Lev 7:1 Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy.
Lev 7:2 In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar.
Lev 7:3 And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards,
Lev 7:4 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away:

Therefore, we have group one - those who serve in the temple AND those who serve at the altar

So?

In verse 14, the Apostle made reference to another group, group #2 - those who preach the gospel. And how are these group of people supposed to make their living?

You are the one making groupings and divisions. The passage was making parallels and logical deductions. The simple message in the passage is that it is not a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things. Why? one because others are reaping it, and two because the scripture supports it. Then he quoted the instances. Not forgetting that he had earlier quoted Deuteronomy 25 to arrive at this same conclusion. He said Deuteronomy 25 is written for us(For our sakes, no doubt, this is written). i'm certain that you Goshen think otherwise. You see, the early christians were never in doubt of the integrity and relevance of the scriptures. They actually questioned the apostles and their teachings by checking the Bible(the OT mostly) to see if the apostles were in line. It's unlike what you advocate these days, that the Bible is useless and not for christians. The thing that made the Beraens noble was that they correlated the apostles' sayings with the scriptures' saying, whether these things were so. It had to correspond, the scripture was the benchmark, the truth test. It was to them, the perfect law of liberty.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. 5“When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house. Luke 10, NIV

Did you read and agree with this whole passage or just the part you underlined? Do you think that 1 Corinthians 9 is not what God ordained?What gives you the feeling that this is the one and only passage that the Lord ordained when you probably do not even totally agree with the passage? Did the Lord not ordain passages like the one below?
Galatians 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.
Is tithe a good thing or a bad thing? Was giving tithes to God a thing of honour or of dishonour?

@ loveroftruth

If a 'fraud' is being tolerated, why are you waiting for frosbel? Or are you unable to call out the 'fraud' yourself?

THOSE WHO DENY THE PAYING OF TITHE ARE THOSE POSSESSED WITH THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST. IF THE BIBLE SPECIFICALLY MADE MENTION OF THOSE NOT PAYING TITHE ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS, AND YOU DISCARD IT CLAIMING IT IS OUTDATED BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. BUT JESUS DECLARED, Matthew 5:17-18 KJV. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

WE ALSO SEE THAT, THE OLD TESTAMENT IS STILL RELEVANT. IT IS ALSO THE WILL, I MEAN THE WHOLE BIBLE. THE ONLY THING THAT IS ABOLISHED IN THE BIBLE IS THE SACRIFICES FOR SINS TO APPEASE GOD. JESUS IS THE ONLY SACRIFICE NEEDED BY GOD RIGHT NOW, WHICH HE SUCCEEDED IN DOING ON THE SACRIFICE FOR AS MANY THAT BELIEVED ON HIM. SO, THE LAW IS RELEVANT BECAUSE JESUS NEVER CONDEMNED IT BECAUSE IT IS HIS WORD.

SO THOSE CONDEMNING TITHE AND OFFERING ARE MOCKERS WHO WANTS THE DOWNFALL OF THE BODY OF CHRIST(WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE). Jude 1:17-19 KJV. "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; [18] How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. [19] These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."

JUST LIKE THE 19th VERSES ABOVE, THEY WANT TO SERVE GOD WITH SENSE. THATS IMPOSSIBLE. WE SERVE GOD BY FAITH, BY BELIEVING EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE. WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION THE WORD OF GOD. GOd IS NOT FORCING ANYONE TO BELIEVE ON HIS WORD. IT'S A CHOICE! GOD CAN DO AWAY WITH US, ONLY THAT HE LOVES US MUCH THAT HE ALLOW US TO PERISH. IF GOD COULD NOT WITHOLD HIS SON JESUS FOR US BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE, WHY NOT WE GO AHEAD TO OBEY HIS WORD ON TITHE RATHER THAN BELIEVING AN UNBELIEVER (ARIBISOLA) WHO MISCONSTRUED THE BIBLE AND YOU BELIEVED HIM. WELL THIS IS END TIME AND THE DEVIL WILL POSSESS MANY TO BELIEVE PREACH OR PROCLAIM LIES. THE REASON YOU BELIEVE THAT LIE IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN UNBELIEVER. YOU HAVE BEEN DOUBTING THE BIBLE FOR LONG BEFORE THIS LIES FROM ARIBISOLA CAME. 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 9-12 KJV. "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let , until he be taken out of the way. [9] Even him , whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, [10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. [11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: [12] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

THEREFORE MY FRIEND, IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE, BELIEVE IT WITH ALL YIUR HEART WITHOUT A MIXTURE. IF YOU ARE NOT STABLE ON THE WORD OF GOD, IT MEANS YOU UNSTABLE. AND AN UNSTABLE PERSON BEFORE GOD HAS DOUBLE MIND WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTED BEFORE GOD. JAMES 1:8. "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

2 Peter 3:16 KJV. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

THE ONLY THING IS THAT PAY YOUR TITHE IN A CHURCH THAT IS A FERTILE GROUND. IF YOU ARE PAYING YOUR TITHE WHERE THE CHURCH IS NOT GROWING, NO ENVANGELISM, NO SOULS WINNING, NO SALVATION MESSAGE, A CHURCH FULL OF WORLDLINESS AND IMMORALITY; WOMEN DRESSING ANYHOW LIKE PROSTITUTES AND MEN HAVING A FREE DAY WITH THEM. A CHURCH THAT WILL BE EXISTING FOR YEARS LIKE 15 TO 20 YEARS WITHOUT BOASTING OF 100 BRANCHES. A CHURCH THAT WILL TELL YOU TO USE MATERIAL THINGS TO PRAY, LIKE CANDLES, IMAGES, WATER, OIL, COCONUTS, LEAVES, WHITE GARMENTS SOAP, SPONGES, ETC. THAT KIND OF CHURCH IS NOTHING BUT FALSE. STAY AWAY FROM SUCH CHURCHES, THEY WILL USE YOUR MONEY FOR THEIR OWN WELLBEING. Isaiah 8:19-22 KJV. "And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? [20] To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. [21] And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward. [22] And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness."

GOD BLESS U!