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

From here, we see that those who preach the gospel and should receive their living from the gospel is by the FREEWILL GIVING of those to whom the gospel is preached to and the Lord said this is because the worker or labourer deserves his wages.

From the passage, you should also see that those who preach the gospel should;
1)go two by two
2) Not take a purse or bag or sandals
3) Not greet anyone on the road.
4) utter a particular phrase as they enter a house
5) Stay in somebody's house and be eating
ETC. You conveniently skipped all this and magnified a phrase that seems to suit your view. i've warned you many times to read and study the Word of God cumulatively, not by cherry picking. Let him that has ears to hear hear.

There is nowhere in scriptures where Christ commanded tithe to be received by those who preach the gospel.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
1Co 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Those who preach the GOSPEL were NEVER told told to get their living from the TEMPLE; it was instructed or commanded to those who minister at the TEMPLE.

If you had known the scripture that we are the temple of God, you would not have condemned the guiltless.

. ."Do not go beyond what is written." 1 Corinthians 4:6

You've continuously quoted this passage out of context, i believe there are other scriptures you could use instead.
1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

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.

col·lec·tion [kə léksh'n]
(plural col·lec·tions)
noun
1. group of things or people: a group of things or people together in one place
2. several different works together: a number of different pieces of writing or music together in one book, CD, or record
3. objects held by collector: a set of objects collected for their interest, value, or beauty
4. paintings or objects in museum: all the paintings or objects of one kind held by an art gallery or museum
[size=13pt]5. taking of donations: the act of taking money due or given[/size]
They took up a collection for him when he was in the hospital.

6. taking of money in Christian church: the act of accepting money from worshipers in a Christian church service, or the money so collected
7. taking: the taking of something on a regular basis, e.g. letters from mailboxes by the Postal Service, or garbage from buildings
8. gathering together: the act of gathering things together (formal)
9. range of new clothes: a range of newly designed clothes for a particular season
the spring collection



[14th century. Via French < Latin collection- < collect- (see collect1)]
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Now, the verse you quoted above, is it 'freewill' giving according to your understanding of freewill? If you have actually experienced services in different churches, you would have observe them donating or contributing or making collections for different causes among which may be needs of others not in their location or even country.

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.

i hope you consider Romans to be also new testament? See the verse below for instance,
Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.
Get a hold on balance please. There are different types of giving, and they are all good. It is blessed to GIVE, that is what the Lord said. And also observe the verse before verse 7 where the apostle equates giving to sowing and reaping. Whether it is food you give, or time, or money, the Spirit of God counts and accepts them all as sowing and reaping.

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?

Paul only used that instance on their giving to the saints. Yes, God loves a cheerful giver, but He doesn't hate an uncheerful giver. Paul gave out of necessity to the preaching of the gospel. You think his service wasn't accepted by God? You think sacrificial giving(whether to God or men) is always cheerful? You think Abraham was very happy to offer Isaac, or Jesus was thrilled to give His life? Think yet again, balance the scriptures. i give my tithes cheerfully BTW.
2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Rom 12:13 [size=14pt]Distributing to the necessity of saints[/size]; given to hospitality.
1Co 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
Phi 4:14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
Phi 4:16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.

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.

See your life as you jump wuruwuru to your answer at the bolded. It would have been funny if it wasn't more of pathetic. All your assertions on what i said, i have said the truth. read Matthew 23:1,23 until you see the light.

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.

So, by some warped logic, Aaron, Levi, Melchi and every other priest in the Bible collected tithe but Jesus is unfit or unworthy or unable or what? The law is relevant/active in your logic to prevent Christ(from receiving) but it loses its power in Gosh and friends life? Commonnnn, be serious.
Now, add these three(five) passages together if you can. This is simple and straight addition any BELIEVER should be able to do. Hope your unbelief will not hinder you.
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.


Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


@debo

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.

But you[b]r[/b] folks deliberately refuse to see this when they ask why the apostles didn't collect tithes. Now, i agree this is what is referred to in part a, BUT in part b who is receiving tithes? If Melchi, how is he receiving tithes in the present continuous? The tenses are clear. if it said 'received', the meaning would change. We are told that Levi payed in Abraham, not payeth.

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.

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
The main question is who is witnessed to be alive and by who? Of Jesus, i know He is witnessed to be alive, and the writer says of Him "For he of whom these things are spoken" What things are spoken of Him?
He lives and there are witnesses. Who is the witness of Melchi?
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Act 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly;
Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

i cannot ignore this many connections between 'witnesses' and 'he that liveth'. At the mouth of two or more witnesses, i have established what i am telling you. Please feel free to establish yours same way. Hopefully, you checked any Bible with a centre reference. i'm not disposed or answerable to external bodies, but still i have gone ahead to give you a credible one(any center reference Bible). Perhaps you need me to mention names and weblinks to validate the scriptures. Gosh obviously expects that from me but will be proving sanctimoniously that he only follows Christ not men.

@ Image?23, pls brother show us where Jesus collected tithe in the bible. God bless.

christemmbassey: @ Image?23, pls brother show us where Jesus collected tithe in the bible. God bless.

fear dey catch you? shey na you dey smear me and image all over NL..deal with what he wrote above first..or can't you comprehend ni i trust bro..image to deal with this topic fair and square so that all concerned will be set free including you..you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free..

Bidam: fear dey catch you? shey na you dey smear me and image all over NL..deal with what he wrote above first..or can't you comprehend ni i trust bro..image to deal with this topic fair and square so that all concerned will be set free including you..you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free..

nobody is smearing you , you are a false prophet , period !

Image123:


Paul only used that instance on their giving to the saints. Yes, God loves a cheerful giver, but He doesn't hate an uncheerful giver.

frosbel:

My brother, you observed the hypocrisy and thievery in his post! Is there need for further evidence that image123 is just a filthy rogue whose only interest is to fleece the flock whether God accepts the giving or not.

frosbel:

nobody is smearing you , you are a false prophet , period !

wolf in sheep skin..did i welcome you back? i didn't miss you like others did.

Bidam: fear dey catch you? shey na you dey smear me and image all over NL..deal with what he wrote above first..or can't you comprehend ni i trust bro..image to deal with this topic fair and square so that all concerned will be set free including you..you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free..

oh did he say anything meaningful? Like , Paul or Peter or John etc collected and actually preached tithe in some verses, maybe i miss such posts, pls can you refer me to such posts? God bless.

Image123:
@debo
But your folks deliberately refuse to see this when they ask why the apostles didn't collect tithes.

Bro, I try to state things as I understand them. If others think differently, that is their prerogative.

Now, i agree this is what is referred to in part a, BUT in part b who is receiving tithes? If Melchi, how is he receiving tithes in the present continuous? The tenses are clear. if it said 'received', the meaning would change. We are told that Levi payed in Abraham, not payeth.

Part B is clearly Melchisedec, because the passage up to and including this verse is focused on a comparison between Melchisedec and the Levitical Priesthood. This final comparison is to highlight the difference between Levitical Priests who die, and Melchisedek of who no end of life is recorded (i.e. he that liveth). Nothing more.

The tenses, as I explained earlier are tool to help the reader to visualise Melchisedec receiving tithes and juxtapose that to the physical witnessing of receipt of tithes by the then present-day Levitical Priests. I liken this to a picture with a caption. The caption will describe what is happening in the picture in present continuous tense.

See the links below for examples. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2306888/Kate-Bush-receives-CBE-The-Queen.html or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2236297/Gary-Barlow-returns-Buckingham-Palace-receive-OBE-Queen.html

That 'receives' is used does not automatically indicate a present-continuous receiving. It must be read in context - just like those captions - and the context is incontrovertibly Melchisedec.

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
The main question is who is witnessed to be alive and by who? Of Jesus, i know He is witnessed to be alive, and the writer says of Him "For he of whom these things are spoken" What things are spoken of Him?
He lives and there are witnesses. Who is the witness of Melchi?

The witness of Melchisedec is the earlier reference in Hebrews 7:3 - he had no end of life, i.e. he lives. I agree, Jesus shares this same quality, but 7:8 does not talk about Jesus when read in context. Or are you saying Melchisedec is dead?

Now, as for your emphasis on what verse 13 is saying - it is referring to verse 11 and 12 and to the changing of the priesthood - the new priest arising after the order of Melchisedec. It is not referring to verse 8, where Melchisedek is being contrasted with Levi's priesthood. 13 is referring to Jesus as the one who brings about a change in priesthood.

i cannot ignore this many connections between 'witnesses' and 'he that liveth'. At the mouth of two or more witnesses, i have established what i am telling you. Please feel free to establish yours same way.

This analysis of yours is only valid if you are claiming Melchisedec is dead. Melchisedec lives - he had no end of life, so the description 'he that liveth' applies to Melchisedec as he abideth continually as stated in Hebrews 7:3.

Hopefully, you checked any Bible with a centre reference. i'm not disposed or answerable to external bodies, but still i have gone ahead to give you a credible one(any center reference Bible). Perhaps you need me to mention names and weblinks to validate the scriptures. Gosh obviously expects that from me but will be proving sanctimoniously that he only follows Christ not men.

I don't need you to mention web-links, but I do not see your reasoning supported by the biblical evidence nor a contextual reading of Hebrews. I consider your view an unrealistic attempt to force Jesus into this verse, when it talks about Melchisedec. I have only asked for any other scholarly source supporting your reading of the verse - perhaps they could explain your view better.

As you are unable to present any, I have nothing further to say on this. I sincerely believe you are in error based on my contextual reading of Hebrews 7. Furthermore if those entrusted with translations - and those who examined the original texts to make commentaries interpret 7:8 as Melchisedec, I cannot see any basis for your own interpretation aside your need to show tithing as an ongoing practice.

my advice is simple and short. every genuinely born again Christian should avoid this argument

DAREFMD: my advice is simple and short. every genuinely born again Christian should avoid this argument

there is nothing like 'genuinely' born again, its either u're born again or not. The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant in it entirety, and tithing was part of this old covenant.

Bidam: wolf in sheep skin..did i welcome you back? i didn't miss you like others did.

Actually i did welcomed him back! (Frosbel).

So. Whats your point?

Pastor Kun:

My brother, you observed the hypocrisy and thievery in his post! Is there need for further evidence that image123 is just a filthy rogue whose only interest is to fleece the flock whether God accepts the giving or not.

They cannot help but contradict themselves time and time again , especially when desperately trying to justify this abolished dogma.

Blessings.

I don't understand why nobody is dealing squarely with Image123 on his mission to basterdize scriptures of Hebrews 7:8 and 13 just because he wants to justify tithe? Is there no differences between he, 'who is said\witnessed to be living because he had no beginning of days (birth record) or end of life (death record)' AND he, 'who is living by the POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE' Is there no differences?

^^ Bro, I'm not sure what you mean by dealing squarely with Image123 - I have stated my view on this at great length, most recently in my latter post.

I genuinely believe he is in error, and I have plainly said so. I don't think there's much else I can say on this matter that I haven't already said.

DAREFMD: my advice is simple and short. every genuinely born again Christian should avoid this argument

It is only preachers that are fleecing the flock that want to avoid this argument as it's exposes their position on tithes to be false and lacking sound biblical basis.

Goshen360: I don't understand why nobody is dealing squarely with Image123 on his mission to basterdize scriptures of Hebrews 7:8 and 13 just because he wants to justify tithe? Is there no differences between he, 'who is said\witnessed to be living because he had no beginning of days (birth record) or end of life (death record)' AND he, 'who is living by the POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE' Is there no differences?

My brother I have been debating Image123 on this issue for over six years an have come to the conclusion that he is a deliberately fraudulent character who even though he knows the truth would deny it cause it goes against his greedy interest and love for fleecing the flock.

It's really a waste of time and band width to be debating rodents like him.

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.

Give and it shall be given unto you is a command given us by our Lord Jesus Christ. However, like every command in the new covenant, there is no force in virtually anything. Obedience is emphasized and encouraged more. You won't exactly(hardly) find a place that says IF you don't do x you are damned. There is need to pray, love, fast, give, fellowship etc but no force as it were. It's the same thing with tithing which is a type of giving. There remains nothing wrong in a believer doing something as a duty.
Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtor[/b]s they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, [b]their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

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.

There was free will offering in the OT also. It does not remove the other forms of giving.
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give. Every man was to give, there was no 'if you feel like' in that verse.
1Co 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
With all your study tools, i wonder how you missed the 'command' in the passage. He said "I have given order"
(CEV) When you collect money for God's people, I want you to do exactly what I told the churches in Galatia to do.
(GNB) Now, concerning what you wrote about the money to be raised to help God's people in Judea. You must do what I told the churches in Galatia to do.
(WEB) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I commanded the assemblies of Galatia, you do likewise.
Again, the verse 2 says let every one of you give. This is plain english, and any sincere fellow who loves he truth should see the meaning of this. EVERY ONE means no exception. Not some, not as you like, not if you feel free. And the verse is also [size=13pt]proportional[/size] (as God has prospered you). If you remember rudimentary mathematics, you will know that percentage is proportional.
(GNB) Every Sunday each of you must put aside some money, in proportion to what you have earned, and save it up, so that there will be no need to collect money when I come.
(ISV) On the first day of the week, each of you should set aside and save some of your money in proportion to what you have, so that no collections will have to be made when I come.

as i expected, they all dodged like the devil, only clutching at straws and sentences that they think they can scream about. Thank God for debo though, the guy still dey try.

@debo

Bro, I try to state things as I understand them. If others think differently, that is their prerogative.

noted.

Part B is clearly Melchisedec, because the passage up to and including this verse is focused on a comparison between Melchisedec and the Levitical Priesthood. This final comparison is to highlight the difference between Levitical Priests who die, and Melchisedek of who no end of life is recorded (i.e. he that liveth). Nothing more.

The tenses, as I explained earlier are tool to help the reader to visualise Melchisedec receiving tithes and juxtapose that to the physical witnessing of receipt of tithes by the then present-day Levitical Priests. I liken this to a picture with a caption. The caption will describe what is happening in the picture in present continuous tense.

See the links below for examples. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2306888/Kate-Bush-receives-CBE-The-Queen.html or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2236297/Gary-Barlow-returns-Buckingham-Palace-receive-OBE-Queen.html

That 'receives' is used does not automatically indicate a present-continuous receiving. It must be read in context - just like those captions - and the context is incontrovertibly Melchisedec

Again i ask, WHO is witnessing that Melchisedek is living/alive? i like your explanation though.

The witness of Melchisedec is the earlier reference in Hebrews 7:3 - he had no end of life, i.e. he lives. I agree, Jesus shares this same quality, but 7:8 does not talk about Jesus when read in context. Or are you saying Melchisedec is dead?

Now, as for your emphasis on what verse 13 is saying - it is referring to verse 11 and 12 and to the changing of the priesthood - the new priest arising after the order of Melchisedec. It is not referring to verse 8, where Melchisedek is being contrasted with Levi's priesthood. 13 is referring to Jesus as the one who brings about a change in priesthood.

Hopefully, you checked that center reference that i mentioned.
2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
i have established my case for who is is WITNESSED to be alive.
i'm not saying Melchi is dead, neither is Elijah or Moses or even Abraham. But there is One who is witnessed that He liveth.
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Verse 13 says THESE THINGS, you pick just one.

This analysis of yours is only valid if you are claiming Melchisedec is dead. Melchisedec lives - he had no end of life, so the description 'he that liveth' applies to Melchisedec as he abideth continually as stated in Hebrews 7:3.

The description is actually "whom it is witnessed that he liveth." We are talking about witnessing, not just deduction or inferring. Its deeper than the peripheral/surface. Do you believe that Abraham's tithe was collected by both Melchi and God/Jesus?

I don't need you to mention web-links, but I do not see your reasoning supported by the biblical evidence nor a contextual reading of Hebrews. I consider your view an unrealistic attempt to force Jesus into this verse, when it talks about Melchisedec. I have only asked for any other scholarly source supporting your reading of the verse - perhaps they could explain your view better.

As you are unable to present any, I have nothing further to say on this. I sincerely believe you are in error based on my contextual reading of Hebrews 7. Furthermore if those entrusted with translations - and those who examined the original texts to make commentaries interpret 7:8 as Melchisedec, I cannot see any basis for your own interpretation aside your need to show tithing as an ongoing practice.

debo, i don't enjoy arguing either. i actually advised others not to even argue with antitithers or exert anything. It was thereafter that i felt the need to not leave the thread without witness, and i thank God for Ihedinobi and Bidam and mko2005 and whoever else that have made that effort. i'm rounding off postings on the thread as it were(as is perhaps customary if you've observed me in past threads). i've answered the questions asked and explained the way i know. Tithing is not by force, neither is praying. But to say it is unbiblical or unchristian is the error i stand against. If you read the new testament, and the various quotings from the old testament, and compare with the context and grammar of the original passages, one may be tempted to similarly think that the NT writers are forcing Jesus into the passage. Th Word of God is alive and light, and a verse can have dualistic meanings and subjects. It's very common in the Prophets for instance. When you see them quoted by Jesus or in the gospels or the epistles, there is that reasoning that the original is 'clearly' talking about someone/something else. i have little to say above that. Let those that have ears hear. But remember, giving tithes or no is not what makes us acceptable to God or qualifies anyone as christians or no. It is Jesus and living faith in Him.

I don't understand why nobody is dealing squarely with Image123 on his mission to basterdize scriptures of Hebrews 7:8 and 13 just because he wants to justify tithe? Is there no differences between he, 'who is said\witnessed to be living because he had no beginning of days (birth record) or end of life (death record)' AND he, 'who is living by the POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE' Is there no differences?

Hopefully, you will deal squarely with Image123 instead of avoiding most of his posts with the hope that time and new pages will cover them, picking few lines you feel confident to attack. Or better still, get proper understanding, and a godly mission.

@KunleO

My brother I have been debating Image123 on this issue for over six years an have come to the conclusion that he is a deliberately fraudulent character who even though he knows the truth would deny it cause it goes against his greedy interest and love for fleecing the flock.

It's really a waste of time and band with to be debating rodents like him.

Obviously, the meaning of the word 'debate' is lost on you, look for a dictionary to upgrade your self please. You do not debate or discuss, maybe in early times yes but not in the recent more than two years.

debosky:

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.

My dear brother, a strawman is a misconstruction of your argument in order that I may attack it and pretend to a victory. First, I am not in search of a victory in these discussions. Second, I have not attempted to create a strawman here. I have only followed up on my argument. I hold that Jesus's apparent silence on tithing when He sent the disciples forth was because there was no need for Him to reiterate a principle they all accepted. When you countered that Prayer is also an eternal principle but that Jesus gave copious lessons on it, I asked you if He instructed them on it while He sent them forth.

Obviously, if He did, there'd be reason to ask why He gave lessons on one accepted principle and neglected another. But if He did not, it only helps my case that He didn't waste time on lessons on.principles that they already knew. So, it wasn't a strawman, dear brother.

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.

My brother, honestly, I cannot imagine what more I can say in addition to what I have already said. Tithing is as straightforward as can possibly be, nothing complicated about it. Of all that God gives us, we are to give Him back a tenth and that tenth will cater to the needs of His ministers and the poor.

Everytime anything was said on tithing, it always worked out to be what I have just said. The disciples being Jews would know that part of the law quite well. What they wouldn't know was that they were by virtue of being Jesus's ministers entitled to the tithe. This is the reason Jesus instructed them to receive their sustenance from the people that they served.

I'm choosing to avoid asking questions that would demand your substantiating all you said above because I'd rather not increase the animosity in this discussion. I've already grown weary of it in my spirit. Anyway, just to give you a small idea of the gaps up there...Abraham knew of tithes as you said, but who are these that God had to instruct extensively on tithes although they knew of tithing through Abraham? What did they know and what did God teach them that was so much more detailed as to suggest that He couldn't let them take it for granted?

Please don't bother to answer the questions to me. I have a whole world of an argument in them, believe me, and I'm sick of squabbling.

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.

Per your last sentence, it hasn't at all. About the evidence, I'm guessing that you actually do not know what it is. The principle of tithing is simply that the beneficiary acknowledges the beneficence of the benefactor. It is practised in everything we do and in all human spheres. We call it giving honor to whom it is due. When we pay taxes to our governments, we can argue that we are only providing services for ourselves, but are we not doing the exact same thing that God insfructed Israel to do: give a portion of what you have received in order that you may be given more?

Abraham's titging to Melchizedek was not merely ritualistic, it was an acknowledgment of the God Whom Melchizedek served as priest, a statement that that God was the One Who gave the victory that produced all the loot which he tithed. As Hebrews says, upon the remittance of that tithe, Melchizedek blessed him and the lesser is blessed of the greater.

In ancient times, those who exercised power demanded a portion of the returns of the labor of those whom they ruled. As I'm sure you know by the history of the UK, this was mostly because they claimed the whole land as theirs and considered their subjects to simply be tenants that used their resources and thus should rightly give something back for their magnanimity.

God's description of tithing to Israel suggested that He was thinking the same way. He wanted a portion of the returns of the land of Israel which He'd claimed exclusively as His and had given to Israel for their use. This was why He would receive tithes of nothing but such as could be attributed to Israel.

Tithing was not instituted in Moses, it was described there, but it is a principle that is tied to God's position as Owner of all things. If Caesar could demand taxes and be paid, how much more God? If you read in Revelation, I think that you'll see a mention of the kings of the earth bringing their glory and honor into the New Jerusalem where their King dwells. I think you appreciate what that means. Of course, you can choose to believe that it means that the kings in the world to come come into the Holy City with their pomp and pageantry. I don't think I have any desire to argue with that.

However, it helps to show that eternally, there will be that statement that we make to the Lord saying that we know that we have nothing but what Himself gives to us. That statement is the tithe. How we express it under all kinds of conditions will not deviate from bringing a portion of that which we have got from the Lord's bounty to Him for His Service.

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.

I may be entitled to something and still not claim it, may I not?

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.

As above.

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

If they are merely forms, then they will pass away. When they do, shall we still be giving? What is "giving" as a principle? How do you fulfill the principle without these "forms"?

Yes to both questions.

Well, both are what the tithe is as I have already explained. So, the tithe is a principle.

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.

Well, God did "fix" that our Lord Jesus would go to the Cross. It was His Will but His command to Him was that He must do so voluntarily, no?

Everything in our relationship with God must be done freely. That was why nobody could fulfill the Law until Christ came. We do not obey God now out of compulsion, we do of our own volition.

Has God fixed that we should tithe? Indeed He has. Is it to be the tenth of all that we earn? I believe so, at least, on this side of the divide. Is it to be given to those who minister to us in spititual things? Absolutely! Is it to be given willingly? God would have it no other way.

That God has freed us from obligation does not mean that He has given up His principles. He has not. It only means that now He has given us the enablement to desire what He desires naturally and respond to those desires without compulsion.

Image123: Tithing is not by force, neither is praying. But to say it is unbiblical or unchristian is the error i stand against.

The above is all we are saying. If you don't want to tithe, brethren, keep your money and material goods in your pocket and your barn. But do not condemn those who do as though they sin. If your conscience troubles you, ask the Lord for light concerning the matter. Don't become Ananias and Sapphira corrupting the ways of the Lord for your pride.

@debosky

I'll answer your other post later today.

It may be harsh if i didn't address the OP, let me try to keep it as brief as possible,

Every pastor who collects tithes is nothing but “a thief and a robber.”

As far as many pastors are concerned, the most important scripture of all is not to be found in the word of Jesus. Neither is it even in the New Testament. That scripture says: “‘Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house, and try me now in this,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it.’” (Malachi 3:10).

A baseless assumption. i have never heard or seen any pastor who thinks/preaches/says that the most important scripture is Malachi 3:10

This scripture is drummed repeatedly into Christians on Sundays. However, the only time Jesus mentioned tithing in scripture, he pointed out that it was not a weighty matter of the law. (Matthew 23:23). Hebrews says people only receive tithes “according to the law.” (Hebrews 7:5). It then insists tithing (and everything else under the law) has been annulled: “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless.” (Hebrews 7:18-19). Nevertheless, mercenary pastors continue to insist on the payment of tithes.

fortunately for me, i don't hear this scripture every Sunday, however i can't speak for all. The writer forgot to add that Jesus said "[size=13pt]these ought ye to have done[/size]". He only picked the part that seems not to favour the tithe. Here is the full verse, an half truth is not truth.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
hebrews does not say that people only receive tithes “according to the law.” i believe the word 'only' is supposed to have a meaning. Here is the scripture without carnal additions. Please, i will like to see the version/translation that says ONLY.
Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
There is no scripture passage that insists that tithing has been annulled. The Berean christians would have checked whether these things were so.

Latter-day Pharisees

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for keeping part instead of the whole law. (Matthew 23:23). That is what tithe-collecting pastors do today. If we insist our congregants must pay tithes, we must also insist that they keep the rest of the law. James says: “Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10). Therefore, if we insist on tithing, we should also refrain from eating pork. We should stone adulterers, execute homosexuals, kill Sabbath violators and restore blood-sacrifices.

this paragraph stems from a poor understanding of scriptures and of the covenants. The law was against bestiality and murder too. Do we pull out this James passage to nullify that? Christians do not obey the Word of God for justification like the OT, we obey because we have grace.

Tithe-collecting pastors counter this by maintaining the payment of tithes pre-dated the law. Here Abraham is cited as the cardinal example of someone who paid tithes before the promulgation of the Law of Moses, as did Jacob, his grandson. However, such arguments are disingenuous.

Before the law, tithing was at best an example but not a commandment. Moreover, pastors fail to mention that Abraham only tithed once in his lifetime

.
There goes the word 'only' again. It appears the writer of this article may be omniscient.

When he did, he did not even tithe his own money: he tithed the spoils of war. He gave ten percent of the plunder he took when he rescued Lot to Melchisedec, king of Salem. But then he did not even keep the rest but returned it (all ninety percent) to the king of Sodom.

Assumptions based on poor comprehension. All the spoil of war belong to the victor. Abraham gave the king of Sodom what initially belonged to him. He didn't give him the spoils taken from the defeated powerful five kings.

For his part, Jacob also tithed only once. He did this in a “let’s make a deal” arrangement he offered to God: “Jacob made a vow, saying, ‘If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that you give me I will surely give a tenth to you.’” (Genesis 28:20-22). This kind of deal about accepting God only under certain self-serving conditions should certainly not be a term of reference for any serious believer.

And you have the word 'only' again. Like the writer lived with uncle Jacob.

Lies upon lies

The first lie pastors tell Christians is what some have referred to as “the eleventh commandment:” “Thou shalt pay thy tithes to thy local church.” But the bible says no such thing. The storehouse of Malachi was not a church. It was a place where food was kept.

i don't know about this eleventh commandment. It is however common sense that your tithes should go to where you worship, if indeed you understand the purpose of the tithes. This act doesn't stop one from giving to any other person or location.

Pastors hide from church-members the fact that money was not acceptable as tithe. The tithe was a tenth of the seed and fruit of the land and of the animals which ate of the land. (Leviticus 27:30-32). That is why God says: “Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be FOOD in my house.” (Malachi 3:10). He does not say “that there may be MONEY in my house.” The food was used to feed the Levites, the poor, widows, orphans and strangers.

And you are hiding from the unwary that the law was given in an agrarian society where their chief/common money(legal tender) was 'meat'. Today, our legal tender, chief and common to all is money. It can still be referred to as 'daily bread'. That's all grammar if one understands basics. Your leaders need to be catered for, they have family, education, transportation etc to attend to. Do unto others as unto yourself, that's golden. if you would rather be paid in 'money' or in food. If you would rather give your child going to school or for service food equivalent instead of money. do unto those that are worthy of double honour what you ought to.
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.
1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward

Pastors also conveniently fail to teach the biblical tithe. The principles of tithing were not laid down by Malachi. They were laid down by Moses. The study of Moses’ guidelines quickly reveals that the biblical tithe has no application whatsoever to Christians and is mischievously violated by tithe-collecting pastors today.

According to the Law of Moses, the tithe was divided into three allocations. The first year, it was given to the Levite. The second year, it was given to widows, orphans and the poor. The third year, it was eaten in the company of the faithful before the Lord as thanksgiving for his faithfulness. (Deuteronomy 14:22-28). In the seventh year, there was no planting and no reaping and therefore no tithing.

Yet another wrong understanding of Bible passages. Where is tithe divided into three allocations? There were different tithes in the OT, its not the same tithe been allocated annually.

So the next time your pastor asks you to pay tithe, ask him about the seventh-year reprieve. Also ask him if you can give your tithe to the orphanage, or bring it as food items to be eaten in church. Believe me; he will not agree with you because it is your money he is after.

A sincere reader of the Bible will see that there was no harvest in the seventh year, therefore no tithe. i don't know of any pastor that will ask of tithes without income. If you have no income, whether seventh year or seventh month, of course, there is nothing to tithe from. Tithe is a tenth of X, if X is zero, the value of tithe is known. This is no revelation.

Inapplicability of tithes

Tithing was only applicable to Jews and to the land of Israel. When large populations of Jews lived in Babylon, Ammon, Moab, Egypt, and Syria, these lands became tithe-able lands. However, tithes were not acceptable from strictly Gentile lands. So you need to ask your pastor how come he is collecting tithes in Nigeria.Servants or slaves who worked on the land did not tithe because the land did not belong to them. Since only agricultural and animal resources were included, a fisherman gave no tithe of his fisheries. Neither did a miner or a carpenter pay tithes, nor anyone from the various professional occupations. So if you are not a farmer or a keeper of livestock, tell your 419 pastor tithing is biblically inapplicable to you.

Any Bible passage or verse to support this old wives' fable?

Moreover, the only people authorised to receive tithes were the Levites. (Hebrews 7:5). So if your Pastor is a “tithe-collector,” ask him if he happens to be a Jew. Remind him that, even though a Jew, Jesus could not receive the tithe because he was not from the tribe of Levi but from that of Judah.

You should be asked whether we are under the law or under grace. Tithing was before the law, love it or hate it. It's fact, it's truth.

The trick, of course, is for pastors today to claim we are “Levites.” If your pastor is one such dissembler, ask him if he lives as a Levite. Remind him that Levites had no land and did not have private property. Ask him also how he knows he is from the tribe of Levi, which happens to be one of the lost tribes of Israel. Point out to him that even Jewish rabbis don’t claim to be Levites today because all Jewish genealogical records were lost with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, ensuring that it is no longer possible to ascertain the true identity of Levites.

Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.
Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Therefore, if Jews no longer tithe because the Levites are a lost tribe, how can Christian pastors collect tithes when we are not even Jewish, how much more Levites? If Jewish rabbis, whose terms of reference remain the Old Testament no longer collect tithes, then pastors who insist Christians are under a New Testament have no business doing so.

The conclusion then is inescapable. Every pastor who collects tithes is nothing but “a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1).

NEWSFLASH! Melchisedec was not a Jew, He received tithes. Christians are made priests after the order of Melchisedec.

The disciples being Jews would know that part of the law quite well. What they wouldn't know was that they were by virtue of being Jesus's ministers entitled to the tithe. This is the reason Jesus instructed them to receive their sustenance from the people that they served.

And this 'ignorance' eventually gave them the tag 'poor saints'. Indeed, My people perish for lack of knowledge. the famine was a worldwide famine according to Agabus, but the people/saints at Jerusalem were the worst hit. They were busy laying all their possessions at the apostles feet and sharing them daily as every man had need. It all appeared lovey-dovey but it was never commanded by God. The Word of God belongs to us, and there are principles in it that can help us if we follow them. Holy Spirit is not likely to tell you to eat balanced diet or save money, or work hard or study diligently. These are all principles already established in the Word. A tongue firing, spirit full christian can still end up suffering from avoidable pain and loss due to bad hygiene, poor nutrition, wrong study techniques, incorrect work ethics, or not saving and investing wisely. the Holy Spirit is your Senior Partner as it were. The law(OT) was our school master. Holy Spirit is not sent or predisposed to teaching you nursery work and abc. that's supposed to have been taken care of by your school master. Christians are not supposed to be children/babies in the Galatians context. Well, may God help us. i can't say it more than this.

Tithe topic is a distraction. It should be avoided . Those who argue against tithes mostly don't really have a local church or a pastor over them. The problem with them is bigger that tithe . It's about their life and spiritual authority

Joagbaje:
Tithe topic is a distraction. It should be avoided . Those who argue against tithes mostly don't really have a local church or a pastor over them. The problem with them is bigger that tithe . It's about their life and spiritual authority

those who argue against tithes are mostly hoodlums, touts, urchins. of all the things to discuss in the church, tithing is the only thing they are focused on. these people are slaves to money - they worship money rather than God.

Ihedinobi:
Obviously, if He did, there'd be reason to ask why He gave lessons on one accepted principle and neglected another. But if He did not, it only helps my case that He didn't waste time on lessons on.principles that they already knew. So, it wasn't a strawman, dear brother.

If you say you grow weary, then I am wearier . Now seriously - you keep trying to sidestep the initial premise - the copious teachings are absent on tithing - that's the point. Not whether he taught it while he sent them forth - that is the strawman (or whatever name you may choose to call it) you present. If that is not misconstructing my argument I don't know what is - I talk about preponderance of teaching in the NT on eternal principles, you attempt to reduce it only to what Jesus taught when sending them off.

My brother, honestly, I cannot imagine what more I can say in addition to what I have already said. Tithing is as straightforward as can possibly be, nothing complicated about it. Of all that God gives us, we are to give Him back a tenth and that tenth will cater to the needs of His ministers and the poor.

No - the principle is we are to give out of what we have been given in order to help his ministers and the poor - that giving is not restricted to the tithe.

Everytime anything was said on tithing, it always worked out to be what I have just said. The disciples being Jews would know that part of the law quite well. What they wouldn't know was that they were by virtue of being Jesus's ministers entitled to the tithe. This is the reason Jesus instructed them to receive their sustenance from the people that they served.

Again you neglect the very question I asked - if the Jews were familiar, what of the gentiles? How were they taught to tithe? Which of the tithes? How frequent? Where are the teachings to make them also familiar?

As for the latter line, why didn't Jesus instruct them to receive the tithe? He said sustenance - hence that is the principle, not tithe!

Per your last sentence, it hasn't at all. About the evidence, I'm guessing that you actually do not know what it is. The principle of tithing is simply that the beneficiary acknowledges the beneficence of the benefactor.

No - this is the principle of giving. Tithe is a form of giving, or, as you so eloquently said earlier a subset of collections. Or have you now backtracked from that?

It is practised in everything we do and in all human spheres. We call it giving honor to whom it is due.

We call it giving - yes - that is the principle. If tithe was the principle, other forms of giving would not be necessary and would not have been taught.

Abraham's titging to Melchizedek was not merely ritualistic, it was an acknowledgment of the God Whom Melchizedek served as priest, a statement that that God was the One Who gave the victory that produced all the loot which he tithed.

No debates, but this still doesn't make tithing a principle - it's the act of giving that made it a principle. Even if Abram had given 1%, it would still have fulfilled the same purpose.

As Hebrews says, upon the remittance of that tithe, Melchizedek blessed him and the lesser is blessed of the greater.

No it doesn't - and this is a major issue I hold against those who twist tithe teaching. Abram gave a tithe after he was blessed by Melchisedec, and not before.

Tithing was not instituted in Moses, it was described there, but it is a principle that is tied to God's position as Owner of all things.

If it was not 'instituted' in Moses, where/when was it instituted? Abram gave freely of his own volition, so it was not 'instituted' there either. Where was it instituted then?

I think that you'll see a mention of the kings of the earth bringing their glory and honor into the New Jerusalem where their King dwells. I think you appreciate what that means.

Of course I do - and I appreciate even more the fact that it doesn't say bringing a tithe of their glory.

However, it helps to show that eternally, there will be that statement that we make to the Lord saying that we know that we have nothing but what Himself gives to us. That statement is the tithe.

No - the statement is not the tithe. It is the act of giving. The poor widow who gave her all, the woman with the alabaster box, the boy with his fish and loaves - they emphasise and reinforce giving as the statement, not tithe.

How we express it under all kinds of conditions will not deviate from bringing a portion of that which we have got from the Lord's bounty to Him for His Service.

Correct - emphasis on a portion - whatever that portion may be. Be it 1,2,3,10,20.50% - giving is the principle, not the portion given.

I may be entitled to something and still not claim it, may I not?

Another strawman - if there is no record of Elisha and even those Jesus sent out spoken of as entitled to the tithe, this is purely your fabrication. Elisha, living under the law, could not have been entitled to the tithe as it is restricted to the sons of Levi.

The principle of entitlement is clear - support from the giving of those who benefit from ministry. The principle is not tithe.

If they are merely forms, then they will pass away.

Which is why tithing (as described under the law) has passed away. Which is why the 'heave offering' has also passed away, which is why the 'wave offering' has also passed away. Even you do not claim we need to give agricultural produce to priests in Jerusalem. That only serves to confirm that tithing is a form.

When they do, shall we still be giving?

Yes - as Paul described in 2 Corinthians 9:7, without any mention of tithing.

What is "giving" as a principle?

In your own words - that the beneficiary acknowledges the beneficence of the benefactor.

How do you fulfill the principle without these "forms"?

While the principle holds, there will be a form available to fulfill it.

We will no longer earn income in heaven, but even there we will still 'give' our Praise to God. When you focus on the principle, you will find a way of expressing its intent.

Well, both are what the tithe is as I have already explained. So, the tithe is a principle.

No - both are what giving is. The intent can be fulfilled by tithing, but not exclusively so. In plain English, I do not need to tithe to acknowledge the Grace that benefits us or acknowledge our relationship with God as pensioners upon His Grace.

To do that I need to give - be it by tithes AND/OR by other forms of giving.

Well, God did "fix" that our Lord Jesus would go to the Cross. It was His Will but His command to Him was that He must do so voluntarily, no?

Yes, so it is incumbent on you to show us where he similarly 'fixed' tithe.

Has God fixed that we should tithe? Indeed He has

Where has he fixed this? According to you, it was only 'described' in Moses - kindly show where it was fixed.

Joagbaje:
Tithe topic is a distraction. It should be avoided . Those who argue against tithes mostly don't really have a local church or a pastor over them. The problem with them is bigger that tithe . It's about their life and spiritual authority

Uncle joe how na? long time! Are you back from your sabbatical?

To respond to your silly submission, on the contrary those who argue against tithes are those that have been liberated from the lies, deceit and yoke of tithes placed on them by mere men and have come to the knowledge of truth about the false doctrine thus confirming that christians have no business paying tithes. We then as good christians have this responsibility to share this truth with our brethen who are being deceived, liberate them and set them on the path of true christianity which is based purely on the saving grace of christ in which tithing has absolutely no role.

Joagbaje:
Tithe topic is a distraction. It should be avoided . Those who argue against tithes mostly don't really have a local church or a pastor over them. The problem with them is bigger that tithe . It's about their life and spiritual authority

smh..guess U r entitled 2 ur opinion..so stick 2 it witout soundin one-sided..

If I may add to this doctrine of tithe, It is not part of the good news Christ asked the apostles to spread to the heathens(Gentiles). The gospel that was to be preached to Gentiles is more powerful than tithing,prosperity,healing and other familiar doctrines.

How powerful is the gospel of Christ then?

Apostle Paul made this known to us in Romans 1


16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation (NB- it says unto salvation and not unto wealth nor health nor any earthly thing we might think of) to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Most Christians need to know what gospel carries this power. There is only one gospel/god news that God will judge every man by(not by morals or tithes)'this can be affirmed in the book of Romans 2


16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my (notice how the Apostle didn't say our gospel but MY gospel) gospel.

The scriptures says all believers will be judged by the gospel preached by this Apostle. What then is this gospel that we will be judged by?

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This is the simplicity of the gospel, the death, burial and Ressurection of CHRIST but men have concocted other gospels according to their lust.

But how do we know this is the only gospel to be preached by and to believers?

Apostle Paul said to the church in Galatia

9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

He also told Timothy- 1 Timothy 1:3
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

We might want to ask, but there were other apostles like PETER, JOHN e.t.c but the apostle made it clear again by saying 'according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust'.

Therefore, the doctrine of tithe and the likes are part of the Old Testament/ old covenant. Christians need to know their mystical position in Christ and the absolutes wherein.


Forgive any typos.