₦airaland Forum

TV01,

TV01:
@ Pilgrim,

I won't let you weary me ! Recourse to long posts and slieghts of hand won't prove your point.

Neither of which you could honestly allege in my posts.

TV01:
Christ being a Priest after the order of MZD, is to denote the unchanging nature and it's endless life. Period.

The "unchanging nature" of WHAT exactly?

TV01:
The MZD HP is contrasted as superior to the Levitical/Aaronical.

I didn't argue otherwise. My point was that the Melchizedek priesthood was not a "pre-figure" of Christ's priesthood; nor was Scripture contrasting the Aaronic priesthood to Christ's. Please go learn the meaning of those statements so we could quickly move this thread on.

TV01:
Keep insisting that the NT does not denounce tithing, why should it. It was instituted under the law - since done away with - and the one off payment by Abraham of the spoils of war (90% to the King of Sodom), was symbolic to show the superiority of MZD over Levi as priesthood types, not a pattern action for NTC to follow, and there is nothing to suggest that.

I am asking just one thing: WHERE is the verse that helps you DENOUNCE tithing the way YOU have been doing? I'm least interested in your evasions; so please just provide the verse that has been helping YOU denounce tithes.

TV01:
Trying to morph the discussion into something else by being semantic over non-essentials won't play.

I haven't done that either. If anything at all, you have again and again been the one morphing "tithing" into "giving" and trying to d so by qualifying the former with "voluntary".

TV01:
Two types of Priesthoods copntrasted. Levitical and Melchizedekal. Melchizedekal shown to be superior to Levitical. Christ is after the order of Melchizedek. Period.

I'm asking a simple question:

WHERE is God's WORD is it taught that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"?

TV01:
The Tithe was one of the points used to show the Melchizedekal as superior. Not a primer for NTC.

You're just being silly. The Levites under the Law also paid tithes to high priest! Does that therefore demonstrate that the Aaronic priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood?

TV01:
The writer of Hebrews was merely contrasting the Priesthoods and to a lesser degree the law and the superiority of Christinaity over Judaism.

If it were a matter of "merely", please show me the verse that says the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED". Too hard for ou to do?

TV01:
Again, your ingenuity is staggering. a tithe of 10% = Sacrificial worship. How warped is that? Intricacy in worship? Listen to yourself.

No worries. I'll let that pass again; but not for long.

TV01:
Presumably the tithe being so intricate & crucial, and 10% being sacrificial was missed by both Paul and the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8/9?

Let me ask you something, TV01. If you suppose that Paul and the Macedonians missed tithing because you always must needs be so narrow, what place does Proverbs 3:9 & 10 hold in the Christian walk? As for other verses in the NT where the subject of tithing is underscored, I'll come to that. I only request you to demonstrate if you're here for a discussion or you'd rather be at the receiving end of my swathes.

TV01:
I wish you had the integrity to come out and tell us what denominational teaching that is, and what part you play in your tradition? That is bluster at best.

I don't think this discussion has come to the level of a personal trade-off, has it? TV01, can we discuss, or you actually are begging for the same invectives you've been constantly giving off?

TV01:
Whether it's the Priesthood or the occupant, there is nothing to suggest tithing is incumbent or in any way considered as sacrificial worship for NTC. And Hebrews 7 does not suggest so.

I asked a question, not the dribble you came back with. The answer to your worries is in that question.

TV01:
More evidence of your totally ignoring 1 Peter 1:20 that you proclaim so loudly.

No worries.

TV01:
Tithes are used to show the Melchizedek Priesthood is a living one? You cannot be serious? How does tithe denote life? Or everlasting in nature?

I did not argue that tithe DENOTE Life. I offered what Hebrews 7:8 points to: the tithes there are not obsolete, because the One who receives them is clearly proclaimed in these words: "he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." If you want to argue that he is DEAD rather than living, I'd be glad to see the verse where you got that idea from. Thank you.

TV01:
Again, trying to be semantic about corallary issues in order to appear to be right won't cut it.

Please offer substance to the discussions, not the invectives. You're not sounding intelligent at all with such attitudes.

TV01:
We all know Christs priesthood is after the order of Melchizedeks, mentioned - just the once, and symbolic of Christs HP - but that doesn't suggest tithe as a NT Worship offering.

Great. Then TITHES would never have been mentioned in that chapter at all; or, it would rather have been denounced the way you have done several times!

Again, YOU clearly said the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED" - and I'm still waiting for the verse that teaches that!

TV01:
This is so wrong as to be meaningless. How does the Lord recieve tithes?

How does the LORD receive ANY other type of GIVING?

TV01:
Will you please quit about compulsion? Everyone is agreed it can't be by law. You keep harping on about non-issues to make it appear that you have a case. You don't

Just stop being silly, will you? HOW MANT times have you tried to cheat people with the idea that TITHES are by LAW?!?

TV01:
And no it doesn't show it at all. It was symbolic to denote superiority. End of story.

My questions still need answers, please.

TV01:
Please show it (no doubt with your usual wuru wuru) beyond Hebrews 7:8. And the other verses that demonstrate the "power & truth" of tithing as an act of worship. No doubt you'll continue your boast of "revelation", but never actually share anything in a straightforward and impossible to deny manner.

No worries. I have shared matters in as you requested - straightforward and impossible to deny. I left you questions as well - which you deliberately refused to answer. When you can oblige me, I'll do so promptly.

TV01:
I also note your new tactic of selective cutting and pasting to make it sound like I said something I did'nt and then write a treatise rejecting it. Whatever.

Where have I misquoted you, TV01?

TV01:
I won't turn tail no matter how dirty you make it.

I'm not making anything dirty; and I've asked that you show me what, how and where I have used Scripture as you alleged.

TV01:
You simply have no case and your assertion for a NT tithe as an act of sacrificial worship (sounds wierder the more I read it, utter bunkum), is baseless and without merit.

No worries.

You see, all through your over-heated reaction, it's sad you demonstrated the weakness of your own premise by offering absolutely nothing in response to the questions I offered. I always try to make it my aim to answer yours, without boasting anything. But shouting such aspersions in return doesn't prove you've an ntelligent grasp of what you've been noising all along.

Regards.

if i take 10% of my income evrymonth and give it to the less priviledged, am i paying my tithe or is it only wen i take it to church dat it becomes tithe

otuwe:
if i take 10% of my income evrymonth and give it to the less priviledged, am i paying my tithe or is it only when i take it to church that it becomes tithe

Can't you read ! You go to war, kick butt, then give 10% to the High Priest and the rest to an unbelieving ruler !

@TV01,

TV01:
Quote from: TV01 on Today at 12:53:16 PM
I started as a tither as well. But my persuasions to the contrary came after months of study, prayer and discussion. There is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion. However you must come to that conclusion yourself. Taking a stance based on anothers persuasion is the reason many Christians are manipulated by man-made doctrine.[color=#990000][/color]

I stated my experience and my opinion, then advised that he not take my word as gospel, but seek truth for himself, whats sweeping or morally wrong with that?

Pretending that your position is the standard position for others while yet teasing them to not base their stance on another's persuasion.

TV01:
Plus you haven't made the point of it being a Christian notion. You have just mishandled scripture in an attempt to do so.

No wahala. If you were so confident of your position, why the vitriol after I offered again and again that we rather "discussed"? HOW and WHERE I mishandled Scripture, you have yet to show - and where you answered my questions, I am yet to read.

TV01:
Tiothing was only mandatory under the law. If the law is done away with and it was no where else instituted, why would it have to be denounced. Ask yourself where it was ever instituted as a practise above or beyond the law, and in a way that makes it part of NT worship.

Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek - NO LAW, NO COMPULSION, NO MANDATE!
Question: why have YOU been constantly referring to tithes as a matter of "MANDATE" where Scripture does not teach it so?

Proverbs 3:9 & 10 may be helpful when we come to it; but I wonder WHY you have cleverly been evading my questions and returning the aspersions instead?

If you could be a gentleman and offer answers to my questions, then we can progress beyond this point - and then I would show you HOW in the NT we find it there as part of our NT worship. However, if you're not going to oblige that request and come back with the same attititude, I may not be so condescending.

Did the Bible teach ANYWHERE that it was DONE AWAY with? Does the Bible denounce TITHES the way YOU have been doing? Perhaps I need to remind you of what you said in another thread:

TV01:
Tithing is law-bound, Christ-denying, faith-void, religiously perverse, thrice-redundant, ritualistic codswallop (there's no arguing with that !)

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-45362.160.html#msg1035695)

You called tithing all of that: Christ-denying, faith-void, religiously perverse. . . Am I misquoting you, TV01? I've asked and continue to ask you to SHOW the verse in the Bible where God so denounces Tithing the way YOU have been doing. There are more - go edit them if you may; but please simply answer my request:

     Where in the Bible does God denounce TITHING the way YOU have been doing, TV01?

Why try to cheat your readers with such attitudes as if that is what we read in Scripture?

TV01:
More of your sleight. Stop trying to make an issue of Priesthood. 2 types one superior, Christs like the superior one.

Where does Scripture say that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED", TV01?!? You used that word in your belief that Melchizedek priesthood has been set aside; so I'm still asking that you please show how so.

TV01:
I'm starting to believe you really are a girls blouse.

No worries again: I'll let that pass for now.

TV01:
Utterly muddled. So spoils are Abrahams, gives 10% to God and 90% to Sodom?

I asked a question: did you answer it, or you just wanted to mock as usual? When you invite a discussion, maybe I'll show you what you so strenously deny. Until then, I'm still asking.

TV01:
You can't even win an arguement you make on your own terms and have with yourself?

How so? I'm not arguing with myself - and it doesn't help to pretend it so with that mechanical device to evade what I've been asking of you.

TV01:
Who is arguing for law based tithing?

That's what YOU have been again and again referring to in connection to tithing. I'll remind you of yet another one:

TV01:
Tiothing was only mandatory under the law.

-- am I misquoting you again?

You made that point, and trying to come back denying it. What really is your position, TV01? Is it so difficult for you to be honest and consistent?

TV01:
Again, the paying of tithe by Abraham to Melchizedek was to demonstrate the superiority of his Priesthood over the Levitical. As easily seen in context.

Was that the reason why Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, even though he knew nothing of the Levitical priesthood at the time of that incident? Have you sincerely sought to understand why Abraham gave tithes in Genesis 14?

TV01:
I outlined this for you earlier. Because the lesser is blessed by the better. Abraham paying a tithe signified his acceptance of the superiority as referenced later in Hebrews.

I am asking you a pointed question: was Abraham trying to compare and contrast between Melchizedek and Levitical priesthood?

TV01:
No one said it was by law.

You did - several times; and you even went further to write it off as a "mandate". Please be honest to yourself, at least.

TV01:
Please don't go puce barking up the wrong tree. There are only two types of priesthood, Christs ios lioke the second superior one. Stop terying to make this issue rest on an inconsequential corallary and blatant misinterpretation of scripture.

I asked a simple question, and I'm still asking it: Where in Scripture do you read that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"?

TV01:
Tithes don't demonstrate an endless life.

I never said Tithes denoted or demonstrated an endless life. This is what I said:

pilgrim.1:
That "order" of priesthood was not "set aside" for, or "replaced" by, another priesthood - because it is based on just one thing: "the power of an endless life" (Heb. 7:15-17)!

TV01:
And I also note you selective (and still muddled) responses to posts.

Can you please show how; or you just discovered another mechanical devise to evade questions being offered you?

TV01:
Forget Greek, try English. There's a difference between "sacrifice" and "sacrificial". It's always a sacrifice, but not always sacrificial a la ther macedonians.

It won't hurt to look at the Greek construct - no harm in it. Not all available English translations actually convey the sense of that verse - and I've offered why I'm persuaded that is the case after having carefully checked the study tools myself. You don't have to be timid in taking an offer; rather than over-reacting to it.

TV01:
But as ever you chase down the non-essentials and write booming epistles about the inconsequential. You keep demonstrating that it's personal.

Okay, I guess I'd have to return with the same language and tone you've constantly offered in yours. Don't take it personal when I do. Fair deal?

TV01:
Tithing is not mandatory. Thus it can only be voluntary. How does it differ from giving? What benefits accrue? In the absence of any answers to these, it can be seen only as the same and any seperate classification or need as mute. I keep it simple, why can't you. Windy and wrong!

I've tried from the onset to keep it as simple as well. It is your attitude to cheat behind the counter that makes invites my detailed posts. If you can offer answers to show HOW ad WHERE your allegations hold, why not do so as simply?

TV01:
Please tell us how now.

As soon as you oblige answers to my questions, I'll do so. Thank you.

TV01:
Can't you read ! You go to war, kick butt, then give 10% to the High Priest and the rest to an unbelieving ruler !

As for the spoils of war:

1 Chronicles 26:27 -- "Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD."

TV01:
Can't you read ! You go to war, kick butt, then give 10% to the High Priest and the rest to an unbelieving ruler !

can someone else pls answer my question. pilgrim maybe

The "unchanging nature" of WHAT exactly?

The Priesthood. The Melchizedekal type does has an endless life, no death, and therefore does not change. The essence is the priesthood, what ther tithe denotes is the superiority of the one that it is paid to, over the one that paid it. Period. No alchemy.

I didn't argue otherwise. My point was that the Melchizedek priesthood was not a "pre-figure" of Christ's priesthood; nor was Scripture contrasting the Aaronic priesthood to Christ's. Please go learn the meaning of those statements so we could quickly move this thread on

Read on to chapter 8,9, & 10. You describe my reading as narrow. Perhaps, but at least it's comprehensive, unlike your "one verse + alchemy" doctrinal appraoch.

I am asking just one thing: WHERE is the verse that helps you DENOUNCE tithing the way YOU have been doing? I'm least interested in your evasions; so please just provide the verse that has been helping YOU denounce tithes.

Keep harping. Are you really interested in discussion? I have discussed tithing as not mandated by any biblical law and at best a voluntary action. In which case no problem, go ahead. I also said as a voluntary action, there is nothing to suggest that it accrues benefits or marks the tither out as more spiritual/mature or holder of deep revelation. My submission.

I haven't done that either. If anything at all, you have again and again been the one morphing "tithing" into "giving" and trying to d so by qualifying the former with "voluntary".

You really are spoiling for a fight aren't you. Have I not made myself clear already?

I'm asking a simple question:

WHERE is God's WORD is it taught that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"?

The order remains, Christ is the incumbent. Superior to the Levitical/Aaronic. That is all. You are forcefully trying to make people tithe, just because Abraham did so once. Symbolic of said superiority. Keep tossing your girly asides. Think dcks back and water.

You're just being silly. The Levites under the Law also paid tithes to high priest! Does that therefore demonstrate that the Aaronic priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood?

Abeg, cover your unclothedness. The house of Aaron where Levites. The HP was restricted to the house of Aaron.

Let me ask you something, TV01. If you suppose that Paul and the Macedonians missed tithing because you always must needs be so narrow, what place does Proverbs 3:9 & 10 hold in the Christian walk? As for other verses in the NT where the subject of tithing is underscored, I'll come to that. I only request you to demonstrate if you're here for a discussion or you'd rather be at the receiving end of my swathes.

Desperation sets in. Appending Proverbs 3:9&10 does what exactly? I know, it diverts us from the topic in hand. Carry on.

I don't think this discussion has come to the level of a personal trade-off, has it? TV01, can we discuss, or you actually are begging for the same invectives you've been constantly giving off?

I think it would be good to declare your interest in tithing, by clearly stating your denominational affiliation and position in that denomination. Nothing more personal than that.

I did not argue that tithe DENOTE Life. I offered what Hebrews 7:8 points to: the tithes there are not obsolete, because the One who receives them is clearly proclaimed in these words: "he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." If you want to argue that he is DEAD rather than living, I'd be glad to see the verse where you got that idea from. Thank you.

So Hebrews 7:8, points to the fact that tithes are not obsolete. Obsolete as a what? There was never anything to suggest they were mandated or expected or needful or relevent. If they were, there would have been no need to codify it by law, it would have been standard practice.

You willfully refuse to see that it was not standard practise before the law, neither is there  anyhing to suggest it was. If it was, there would have been no need for what would have been a new law (or it would at least been made in reference to the previus practice - which in any event was not agricultural products), but a renewal of a forgotten or abandoned practice.

Melchizedek recieved the tithe from Abraham. Because the order remains, does that mean that the tithe remains? A one off tithe of the spoils of war? With 90% to a gentile King. So as our fellow poster enquired, please expound on it in practise. Translate Abrahams actions and the resultant act for NTC. Maybe it wpuld help if we can see it practically.

Simply and categorically the tithe was to denote difference between the types. EOS. Keep trying to mutate it into "intricate, sacrfificial NT worship practise", of which only a few have the revelation.

Great. Then TITHES would never have been mentioned in that chapter at all; or, it would rather have been denounced the way you have done several times!

It was mentioned for a reason, as noted above and umpteen times previously.

Just stop being silly, will you? HOW MANT times have you tried to cheat people with the idea that TITHES are by LAW?!?

Never!
But you have to keep warping what I say to find something to argue about and justify your untenable position. That is, falsify my premise to justify your (flawed) position.

I'm here.

God bless
TV

otuwe:
if i take 10% of my income evrymonth and give it to the less priviledged, am i paying my tithe or is it only when i take it to church that it becomes tithe

Hallo girlfriend? Whatzup?

Tithing doesn't have to be 10%.

Giving to the poor is another expression of giving:

Prov. 19:17 -- "He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again."

Prov. 28:27 -- "He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse."

Giving in Church is regarded in this way:

Heb. 13:16  --  "But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."

pilgrim.1:
As for the spoils of war:

1 Chronicles 26:27 -- "Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD."

Approx 1%. And again not essential to the notion of a personal tithe. More diversionary tactics. Indeed, "spoils of war" litigates against your position.

End it, now.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Tithing doesn't have to be 10%.

Ah, so you know better than abraham now? After all, you are modelling it on his one-off action?

pilgrim.1:
Giving in Church is regarded in this way:

Heb. 13:16 -- "But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."

So, giving to the poor is not a sacrifice, but giving to the church needy is? Intricate indeed !

God bless
TV

TV01:
So, giving to the poor is not a sacrifice, but giving to the church needy is? Intricate indeed !

God bless
TV

for once i seem to agree with this guy.

i feel the one dat should be called a sacrifice is the one given to someone who needs it not to one pastor who has it all.

i heard of a bishop of one of these popular churches who hasnt even touched 2007 tithes of his members. because of too much money. he is still enjoying last yrs offering and tithe.

is it not better to give this money to the people who really need it?



pls this is my opinion

@TV01,

TV01:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg1340760#msg1340760 date=1185801445:
The "unchanging nature" of WHAT exactly?

The Priesthood. The Melchizedekal type does has an endless life, no death, and therefore does not change. The essence is the priesthood, what ther tithe denotes is the superiority of the one that it is paid to, over the one that paid it. Period. No alchemy.

Please keep the alchemy. What exactly have I been arguing about all along? I've severally stated that the question there was about the PRIESTHOOD, and that Melchizedek's priesthood has not been changed - and you came back stating this:

TV01:
Hebrews clearly states that;
- - -
4. But even the Melchizedek type has been replaced bas "another has arisen" (of similar type).

. . . and I've been asking you to please, please and please, show me the verse that says that the Melchizedek priesthood has been REPLACED! Why has it been so difficult for you to simply offer a verse for that?

TV01:
Read on to chapter 8,9, & 10. You describe my reading as narrow. Perhaps, but at least it's comprehensive, unlike your "one verse + alchemy" doctrinal appraoch.

I have read and studied all three chapters before showing that your narrow reading is not what Scripture teaches. Thereto, I offered the other apsects of what you constantly failed to acknowledge are in Scripture.

TV01:
Keep harping. Are you really interested in discussion?

I've offered a discussion all along. If you don't want that and prefer the vitriol, please let me know.

TV01:
I have discussed tithing as not mandated by any biblical law and at best a voluntary action. In which case no problem, go ahead.

Question: To Tithe or Not to Tithe?
Your answer: As long as it is "voluntary", yes - please go ahead and TITHE!

Am I missing something or misreading you? Is this the first time I pointed this out? See: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.992.html#msg1328852)

TV01:
I also said as a voluntary action, there is nothing to suggest that it accrues benefits or marks the tither out as more spiritual/mature or holder of deep revelation. My submission.

2 Cor. 9:10 -- "Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness"

Nothing to suggest that it accrues benefits, you said? Does the above verse say the same thing you have stated?

TV01:
You really are spoiling for a fight aren't you. Have I not made myself clear already?

No you haven't clarified anything; and no I haven't been spoiling for a fight. I simply want to know if you rather are inviting the same attitude you display.

TV01:
The order remains, Christ is the incumbent. Superior to the Levitical/Aaronic. That is all. You are forcefully trying to make people tithe, just because Abraham did so once. Symbolic of said superiority. Keep tossing your girly asides. Think dcks back and water. [

Again, I let that sarcasm pass for the moment.

I asked you to provide the verse for your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED" - that's all. Can you do that, please?

And again, I'm not forcing anyone to tithe - and I've said so earlier:

pilgrim.1:
If anyone does not want to tithe because he/she does not believe in its power and revelation, that's just okay. I'm not required to fight them simply because I believe in it; but my persuasions that it is offered to the Christian is what I've been sharing so far.

TV01:
Abeg, cover your unclothedness. The house of Aaron where Levites. The HP was restricted to the house of Aaron.

Where have I stated otherwise, TV01? And how does that answer my question?

TV01:
Desperation sets in. Appending Proverbs 3:9&10 does what exactly? I know, it diverts us from the topic in hand. Carry on.

I'm not deflecting or diverting anything - that's why I've thus far remained with Hebrews 7. I've also stated that we'll come to Prov. 3:9 & 10 when we get there. That's not desparate, is it?

TV01:
I think it would be good to declare your interest in tithing, by clearly stating your denominational affiliation and position in that denomination. Nothing more personal than that.

Has it really come to personal affiliations? Could I ask you to please open another thread and let's discuss that? I don't see how your deviation is helping this thread. Could you also offer what your denomination has to do with this topic, please?

TV01:
So Hebrews 7:8, points to the fact that tithes are not obsolete. Obsolete as a what? There was never anything to suggest they were mandated or expected or needful or relevent. If they were, there would have been no need to codify it by law, it would have been standard practice.

I repeat my request that you've evaded here yet again: "If you want to argue that he is DEAD rather than living, I'd be glad to see the verse where you got that idea from. Thank you."

As regards the "obsolete", it's another way of asking that you proffer a verse for your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED". Thank you again.

And for the umpteenth time, my arguments about tithes are not about it being a MANDATE! Does it really have to be "mandated" before you could care to see what Scripture says on it? That's why I asked yet again: Where is the MANDATE or COMPULSION that led Abraham to give tithes to Melchizedek?

TV01:
You willfully refuse to see that it was not standard practise before the law, neither is there  anyhing to suggest it was. If it was, there would have been no need for what would have been a new law (or it would at least been made in reference to the previus practice - which in any event was not agricultural products), but a renewal of a forgotten or abandoned practice.

I've been sharing precisely what you worry about just above. It was not a "mandated", "coerced" exercise made in the case under review; and I've also highlight the import of Hebrews 7:8. It's okay for you to deny it; but at least, if fair exchange, why has it been forever difficult for you to proffer answers to my questions, TV01?

TV01:
Melchizedek recieved the tithe from Abraham. Because the order remains, does that mean that the tithe remains? A one off tithe of the spoils of war? With 90% to a gentile King. So as our fellow poster enquired, please expound on it in practise. Translate Abrahams actions and the resultant act for NTC. Maybe it wpuld help if we can see it practically.

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

Please consult your study tools and examine closely the meaning of the highlighted words in Greek.

TV01:
Simply and categorically the tithe was to denote difference between the types. EOS. Keep trying to mutate it into "intricate, sacrfificial NT worship practise", of which only a few have the revelation.

The revelation is open to ALL, as I've not claimed anything special. That is why I asked several questions - please answer them.

Was Abraham giving tthe because he was trying to compare Melchizedek's priesthood to the Levitical priesthood - the latter of which he knew nothing? Was that the reason why Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek?

TV01:
It was mentioned for a reason, as noted above and umpteen times previously.

And am asking you again to answer the question, seeing you've evaded it yet again.

TV01:

HOW MANT times have you tried to cheat people with the idea that TITHES are by LAW?!?

Never!

But I've noted earlier how you did so. Scroll up and see. It cost nothing to be honest to yourself, TV01.

TV01:
But you have to keep warping what I say to find something to argue about and justify your untenable position. That is, falsify my premise to justify your (flawed) position.

I've asked that you show HOW and WHERE you might find my persuasion "flawed" - or now "untenable". Where I found yours flawed, I offer a discussion and pointed out why and how so from Scripture. Would it be too hard for you to do likewise?

@otuwe,

otuwe:
for once i seem to agree with this guy.

i feel the one that should be called a sacrifice is the one given to someone who needs it not to one pastor who has it all.

Gal. 6:6 -- "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things."

Php. 4:18 -- "But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God."

otuwe:
i heard of a bishop of one of these popular churches who hasnt even touched 2007 tithes of his members. because of too much money. he is still enjoying last years offering and tithe.

Could we please get our thoughts from God's Word and not the tangential cases of a bishop of one of these popular churches? If you feel it is wrong to give in Church, please show me from the BIBLE.

otuwe:
is it not better to give this money to the people who really need it?

Is a NEED the only thing that defines NT giving? Is your argument here the same thing that we find in God's Word?

otuwe:
please this is my opinion

Great - and I appreciate it. However, every one may have opinions - we all are seeking what the Scriptures teach.

Cheers.

TV01:
Approx 1%. And again not essential to the notion of a personal tithe. More diversionary tactics. Indeed, "spoils of war" litigates against your position.

I offered that verse to show that God does not reject "spoils" of war used in reference to matters of worship. You stated this:

TV01:
Can't you read ! You go to war, kick butt, then give 10% to the High Priest and the rest to an unbelieving ruler !

What were you playing at, TV01? Is this the way you've so reduced your argument with such uncouth innuendoes?

TV01:
Ah, so you know better than abraham now? After all, you are modelling it on his one-off action?

I haven't claimed to know more than Abraham. I asked questions, if you have nothing to offer, please save the rest and let's move on.

TV01:
So, giving to the poor is not a sacrifice, but giving to the church needy is? Intricate indeed !

Is that what I stated, TV01? Do you care to be honest for once?

-----------

otuwe:


can someone else please answer my question. pilgrim maybe

I already did.

TV01:
Approx 1%. And again not essential to the notion of a personal tithe. More diversionary tactics. Indeed, "spoils of war" litigates against your position.

End it, now.

My posts are not diversionary. TV01, there are questions I asked you: please be gentlemanly and honest enough to answer them. Thank you.

. . . and I've been asking you to please, please and please, show me the verse that says that the Melchizedek priesthood has been REPLACED! Why has it been so difficult for you to simply offer a verse for that?

Listen carefully. Two types of priesthood. Levitical and Melchizedical. One - Melchizedekal - is superior. Christ's is of that order. Stop faffing about around priesthood. It was Melchizedek symbolically, it is Christ in fulfillment. You know what I mean, but with nothing to offer, as ever you go for the bluster you love so much. And please enough of your spiteful feminine piety. "I'll let that pass". If you don't nko? Like I care. Please stick to the topic and address issues.

The tithe in the Abraham/Melchizedek incident. Shows that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical type. One of several ways the difference between the two is made. The other main one being, one is unchanging  - due to an endless life -  The type The Lord now has, not because worshippers have to respond as Abraham did. Which in any event was a one off tithe of the spoils/booty. It in now way translates into an ongoing tithe for NTC. And cannot be read as such by an unbiased mind.

I have said before, that a voluntary tithe does not accrue benefits "Over & Above" regular giving, and hence, cannot be distinguished from it. Unless you can show how it is and how it does, it is a mute point. What benefits does tithing engender that giving does not? You love asking questions, but are always quick to ignore those posed.

Another short and concise post which no doubt will be met by lots of obfusction, diversionary tactics, red-herring chasing and your usual advanced alchemy!.

Stick to the main thrust. Stop asking questions as a way to impeed the discussion. Stop wilfully misreading and doggedly pursuing minor errors or omissions and repeatedly asking the same question. Fighting battles on non-issues will never win wars.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
@otuwe,

Gal. 6:6 -- "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things."

Php. 4:18 -- "But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God."

i dont see the relationship btw this and wat i asked

pilgrim.1:
@otuwe,
could we please get our thoughts from God's Word and not the tangential cases of a bishop of one of these popular churches? If you feel it is wrong to give in Church, please show me from the BIBLE.

it is not wrong to give in church but i dont think the tithe talked abt in the bible refers to the present day churches

and pls wat is tangential

Is a NEED the only thing that defines NT giving? Is your argument here the same thing that we find in God's Word?

what is the arguement found in God's word and wat is NT. u r good at confusing me

Great - and I appreciate it. However, every one may have opinions - we all are seeking what the Scriptures teach.

Cheers.

even wen you are truly not convinced with dat which the scripture teaches

TV01:
Listen carefully. Two types of priesthood. Levitical and Melchizedical. One - Melchizedekal - is superior. Christ's is of that order. Stop faffing about around priesthood. It was Melchizedek symbolically, it is Christ in fulfillment. You know what I mean, but with nothing to offer, as ever you go for the bluster you love so much.

Please, show me the verse that says that the Melchizedek priesthood has been REPLACED, and it would suffice! You stated it so assertively, and I want you to please show me the verse for that assumption.

TV01:
And please enough of your spiteful feminine piety. "I'll let that pass". If you don't nko? Like I care. Please stick to the topic and address issues.

I've sought to focus on the topic and address issues; I haven't read your answers to my questions. And since you don't care about discussing, I won't be as condescending as you have enjoyed so far.

TV01:
The tithe in the Abraham/Melchizedek incident. Shows that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical type. One of several ways the difference between the two is made. The other main one being, one is unchanging  - due to an endless life -  The type The Lord now has, not because worshippers have to respond as Abraham did. Which in any event was a one off tithe of the spoils/booty. It in now way translates into an ongoing tithe for NTC. And cannot be read as such by an unbiased mind.

Without bias, please answer these questions:

Was Abraham comparing and contrasting between the Melchizedek and Levitical priesthoods? If he wasn't, WHAT exactly was Abraham demonstrating by his tithes to Melchizedek?

TV01:
I have said before, that a voluntary tithe does not accrue benefits "Over & Above" regular giving, and hence, cannot be distinguished from it. Unless you can show how it is and how it does, it is a mute point. What benefits does tithing engender that giving does not? You love asking questions, but are always quick to ignore those posed.

I did not ignore your posts; and I broached my questions based on your assertions. And if you'd be honest, you did not so state or argue that volunatry tithe does not accrue benefits over and above regular giving; rather, you argued that it does not accrue benefits for in the following statements:

I also said as a voluntary action, there is nothing to suggest that it accrues benefits or marks the tither out as more spiritual/mature or holder of deep revelation.

. . . in which case I offered 2 Cor. 9:10 - "Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness." I also asked if that verse was saying the same thing as you asserted.

A simple question I asked from the onset was this: "2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?" You began by evading that question and launching into deflections on issues I never asked you!

TV01:
Another short and concise post which no doubt will be met by lots of obfusction, diversionary tactics, red-herring chasing and your usual advanced alchemy!.

If you care to be a gentleman and offer answers to the several questions in my reposte.

TV01:
Stick to the main thrust. Stop asking questions as a way to impeed the discussion.

I'm not impeding nothing. I asked questions based on the many denials yu've littered the thread with - and if you've got no answers, say so. Crying that I stop asking questions is another mechanical device to scoot away with your usual cheating behind the counter.

TV01:
Stop wilfully misreading and doggedly pursuing minor errors or omissions and repeatedly asking the same question. Fighting battles on non-issues will never win wars.

Then answer the questions as simply as I offered them.

Cheers.

@otuwe,

otuwe:
i don't see the relationship between this and what i asked

You offered this:

i feel the one that should be called a sacrifice is the one given to someone who needs it not to one pastor who has it all.

Those verses are to help you think through carefully about how you "feel". Paul had it "all" - and he commended those who gave by referring to their gifts as "a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God" (Php. 4:18). What is the relationship between how you feel and what is written in Scripture?

otuwe:
it is not wrong to give in church but i don't think the tithe talked about in the bible refers to the present day churches

What does it refer to? And what tithe are you talking about?

otuwe:
and please what is tangential

As used in my post, it was rather divergent to try and make this topic rest on what you heard about one bishop. That's why I asked that we rather look into Scripture for answers.

otuwe:
what is the arguement found in God's word and what is NT. you're good at confusing me

NT - New Testament.

What is found in Scripture is what I've been sharing so far.

otuwe:
even when you are truly not convinced with that which the scripture teaches

Otuwe, where have I posted anything about the idea that I am not truly convinced with that which Scripture teaches? Please I simply want to know what you mean by that.

Thanks.

@ pilgrim.

girlfriend why dont u make ur responses as simple as possible. reserve complexities to the law court where i know u are extremely good.

cos i never really got any answer from ur last post.

pilgrim.1:
@otuwe,

You offered this:

Those verses are to help you think through carefully about how you "feel". Paul had it "all" - and he commended those who gave by referring to their gifts as "a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God" (Php. 4:18). What is the relationship between how you feel and what is written in Scripture?

What does it refer to? And what tithe are you talking about?

As used in my post, it was rather divergent to try and make this topic rest on what you heard about one bishop. That's why I asked that we rather look into Scripture for answers.

NT - New Testament.

What is found in Scripture is what I've been sharing so far.

Otuwe, where have I posted anything about the idea that I am not truly convinced with that which Scripture teaches? Please I simply want to know what you mean by that.

Thanks.

1. paul had "what" all. why is it dat wen making references i see more of paul and other apostles' "laws" than the simple teachings of Christ.

2. was there really church in the times in the bible. so why do u think the tithe have to be given to the pastors. cud u also compare wat the tithe in the bible was used for with the present day churches

3. u still didnt explain tang. . . watever

4. i guessed dat NT means new testament. i was confused with NT giving. wats new testament giving. that means there is old testament giving too? are there supposed to be many types of giving. once u r giving of urself isnt it enough?

5. i'd rather u just call it the bible not God's word cos i know He doesnt agree with everything in there.

6 you dont have to post it literally, its obvious from the way ur responses come. i see alot of blind faith.

@otuwe,

otuwe:
girlfriend why don't u make your responses as simple as possible. reserve complexities to the law court where i know u are extremely good.

because i never really got any answer from your last post.

I'm trying. . . unless you want me to broke pidgin yin[/b]glish again!

I've tried to be as simple as I could - that's why the short answers.

otuwe:
1. paul had "what" all.

This is what "all" Paul was referring to in Php. 4:18 - "having received of Epaphroditus [b]the things which were sent from you" (sent from the Phillipians).

otuwe:
why is it that when making references i see more of paul and other apostles' "laws" than the simple teachings of Christ.

It all depends on the subject being discussed. I'm sure on other topics (as well this one), the words of Christ from the Gospels have been quoted several times. The apostles' teaching do not violate the teachings of Christ; and we can see an example in I Cor. 14:37 -- "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

otuwe:
2. was there really church in the times in the bible. so why do u think the tithe have to be given to the pastors. cud u also compare what the tithe in the bible was used for with the present day churches

I trust we'll come to the last two questions (lest I be accused yet again of "diverting" the thread). However, there were Churches at the time the NT was written. Otherwise, it would indeed make no sense for the apostle to have written to any Church that did not exist (I Cor. 1:1 - "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth"; and 14:37 - "the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord".

otuwe:
3. u still didnt explain tang. . . watever

I did. Please let me know what you didn't understand.

otuwe:
4. i guessed that NT means new testament. i was confused with NT giving. wats new testament giving. that means there is old testament giving too? are there supposed to be many types of giving. once you're giving of yourself isnt it enough?

To be honest with you, there are others who have used the term "NT giving". I believe there is a difference between that and what we find under the LAW in the Old Testament (OT). However, I also believe that there are different types of giving enunciated in both the New Testament (NT) and the Old Testement (OT).

And I'd have to understand how you mean by "giving of yourself" so I don't run the risk of answering away from what you meant.

otuwe:
5. i'd rather u just call it the bible not God's word because i know He doesnt agree with everything in there.

Please show me in where and what "He doesnt agree with everything in there". If I call it "Bible", does that make it a better term for HIM to "agree with everything in there"? What if I called it the "Scriptures" - would He still disagree yet again? I really find your complaint here amusing, otuwe.

otuwe:
6 you don't have to post it literally, its obvious from the way your responses come. i see alot of blind faith.

Ok, I hear.

Enjoy.

pilgrim.1:
@otuwe,

I'm trying. . . unless you want me to broke pidgin yin[/b]glish again!

I've tried to be as simple as I could - that's why the short answers.

This is what "all" Paul was referring to in Php. 4:18 - "having received of Epaphroditus [b]the things which were sent from you" (sent from the Phillipians).

It all depends on the subject being discussed. I'm sure on other topics (as well this one), the words of Christ from the Gospels have been quoted several times. The apostles' teaching do not violate the teachings of Christ; and we can see an example in I Cor. 14:37 -- "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

I trust we'll come to the last two questions (lest I be accused yet again of "diverting" the thread). However, there were Churches at the time the NT was written. Otherwise, it would indeed make no sense for the apostle to have written to any Church that did not exist (I Cor. 1:1 - "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth"; and 14:37 - "the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord".

I did. Please let me know what you didn't understand.

To be honest with you, there are others who have used the term "NT giving". I believe there is a difference between that and what we find under the LAW in the Old Testament (OT). However, I also believe that there are different types of giving enunciated in both the New Testament (NT) and the Old Testement (OT).

And I'd have to understand how you mean by "giving of yourself" so I don't run the risk of answering away from what you meant.

Please show me in where and what "He doesnt agree with everything in there". If I call it "Bible", does that make it a better term for HIM to "agree with everything in there"? What if I called it the "Scriptures" - would He still disagree yet again? I really find your complaint here amusing, otuwe.

Ok, I hear.

Enjoy.

1. pigin english is not simple. its more like a distortion so i dont subscribe to it. you dont have to speak pigin to simplify ur answers. u dont give me answers most of the time instead u go round and round with quotes upon quotes and dats wat makes it complex

2. like wat u just said about paul. dats not an answer hence am confused again u know am not as "learned" as u are.

3. are u really sure they do not violate the teachings of Christ. i remember someone pointed a whole lot of contradictions and he was practically stoned to death with attacks from christains yet no one had counter evidence to his post so i wont bother bringing them.

4. pls which Church did Christ attend.

5. so which type of giving is the tithe NT giving or OT giving _{ive learnt a new one}

6. i didnt mean to amuse u. but i'd rather u dont attach my God's name to something that should not be attributable to Him. dats y i say u should call it any other name but God's word

otuwe:
1. pigin english is not simple. its more like a distortion so i don't subscribe to it. you don't have to speak pigin to simplify your answers. u don't give me answers most of the time instead u go round and round with quotes upon quotes and that is what makes it complex

Okay, I hear. Most often times I prefer to simply leave the quotes as answers, so that people don't come back accusing me of warped interpretations. I only choose to elaborate where I'm asked to do so.

otuwe:
2. like what u just said about paul. that is not an answer hence am confused again u know am not as "learned" as u are.

Lol. . . U know I've been looking up to you.

Anyway, Paul received "all" that the Phillipian believers sent through Epaphroditus.

otuwe:
3. are u really sure they do not violate the teachings of Christ. i remember someone pointed a whole lot of contradictions and he was practically stoned to death with attacks from christains yet no one had counter evidence to his post so i wont bother bringing them.

That "someone" was being mischievous - and he got his answers. We have also offered him questions to think through; he simply evaded them.

otuwe:
4. please which Church did Christ attend.

The Church is gathered unto the name of Christ (Matt. 18:20) - and He promised to be in such a gathering.

otuwe:
5. so which type of giving is the tithe NT giving or OT giving _{ive learnt a new one}

As I said, we'll come to that at the appropriate time. You may want to go through some that have already been pointed out - and I found this one by 4get_me quite helpful for a start: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.576.html#msg320422)

otuwe:
6. i didnt mean to amuse u. but i'd rather u don't attach my God's name to something that should not be attributable to Him. that is y i say u should call it any other name but God's word

Okay, simply show me where and what you mean by stating: "i know He doesnt agree with everything in there".

Cheers.

The word tithe in Aramic (Hebrew) is ma'asrah meaning “tenth.” In the bible God asks for tithes of the:
Herd or flock (Leviticus 27:32)
Inheritance (Numbers 18:26)
Corn, wine, and oil (Deuteronomy 14:22-23)
Fruit, and offerings (Genesis 4:3)
Mint, anise, cumin (Matthew 23:23)
Rue, all manner of herbs (Luke 11:42)

Kuns:
In the bible God asks for tithes of the:
. . .

Mint, anise, cumin (Matthew 23:23)
Rue, all manner of herbs (Luke 11:42)

God did not ask for tithes in those verses - that's is rather what the Pharisees have adopted as part of their tithes. From Jesus response to that, it is clear He was not amused in the least:

Matthew 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."

"But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

pilgrim.1:
Lol. . . You know I've been looking up to you.

Anyway, Paul received "all" that the Phillipian believers sent through Epaphroditus.

That "someone" was being mischievous - and he got his answers. We have also offered him questions to think through; he simply evaded them.

The Church is gathered unto the name of Christ (Matt. 18:20) - and He promised to be in such a gathering.

As I said, we'll come to that at the appropriate time. You may want to go through some that have already been pointed out - and I found this one by 4get_me quite helpful for a start: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.576.html#msg320422)

Okay, simply show me where and what you mean by stating: "i know He doesnt agree with everything in there".

Cheers.

1. you don't have to be so modest girlfriend. . .it doesnt suit u

2. so the pastors got the idea of tithing in church from paul. did anybody pay tithe to Christ just wondering

3 are u sure it was just mischief. from what i read he got those contradictory passages from the bible. and he was not answered, he was only given more questions

4. so there is really no need for all theses churches that abound. just gather in the name of Christ and He will be there right

5. i don't understand the fact of giving quotes for answers. most times that particular quote has no relationship with the person's question. if u don't explain quotes or relate it to real life then it shows lack of conviction. more like there is no other choice so the person has to stick with the quotes whether he understands it or not.

6. the Language of God is in His Creation (and the laws guiding it) and if u Study it properly and compare with some statements in the Bible, u would see the contradiction. if u say the bible is the Word of God, are u then saying those who never came across the bible don't know the Word of God? i really don't think so.

enjoy. . .girlfriend

@ Pilgrim,

Morning, lets get back to the discussion .

Please, show me the verse that says that the Melchizedek priesthood has been REPLACED, and it would suffice! You stated it so assertively, and I want you to please show me the verse for that assumption.

Please dear, don't try and use a minor error or omission to prove your point. As ever, I'll humour you.

Both the Levitical/Aaronic & Melchizedical priesthoods/high priesthoods are shadows and types of that which was fulfilled in Christ. Now, (and for the zillionth time ), the latter, is superior to the former, but is not the culmination of Gods plan, this - as is the whole plan of redemption - is fulfilled in Christ.

Now, Christs HP is indeed after the order of Melchizedeks in that it is by an oath, and unchanging in nature  - due to an endless life, not because of what Abraham did - and therefore He continues as HP forever.

Further, Christs HP while of the same order for the reasons stated, has to be considered superior, for Melchizedek is never mentioned as purging our sins, ascending through the heavens or being seated at the right hand of God, to mention a few.

Indeed, one of the main thrusts of Hebrews - as I said earlier - is to highlight the excellency of the Lords High Priesthood, by contrasting the two OT orders and showing how The Lords excells in all areas. I would ask that you revisit ch. 9 to asee the further comparion, this time b/w the Aaronic HP and the Lord as HP. A most beautiful exposition of the culminating day of atonement as shadowed by the HP appointed by law and fulfilled by The Lord.

How unfussy is that ?

Without bias, please answer these questions:

Was Abraham comparing and contrasting between the Melchizedek and Levitical priesthoods? If he wasn't, WHAT exactly was Abraham demonstrating by his tithes to Melchizedek?

In truth, I consider that question rather odd, but in my early morning "Gentlemanly" phase I'll do as you ask.

From the back, Abraham by paying a tithe to Melchizedek was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood. As the Aaronic/Levitical came from his - Abrahams - loins. Symbollically therefore - and as the lesser is blessed by the greater - it signifies this superiority between the two orders.

It is not some deeply embedded, little known revelation or hidden code to NTC to tithe.

And no Abraham himself wasn't doing the contrasting, he may not even have known the significance of his action, but as the bible says, the prophets of old inquired and searched dilligently, but it was to us they were ministering.

Happy now?

I did not ignore your posts; and I broached my questions based on your assertions. And if you'd be honest, you did not so state or argue that volunatry tithe does not accrue benefits over and above regular giving; rather, you argued that it does not accrue benefits for in the following statements:

Simply not true. I repeatedly and concisely summarised the fact that if you cannot distinguish the benefits or accroutements of voluntary tithing from normal simple giving in response to need - primarily - or to bless, them it is a mute point. I have said this repeatedly, but in your drive to nail me, you picked up on one incidence - after I had repeated it ceaselessly - were I
wasn't as concise, and tried to make that the basis of the discussion.

Likewise the "law-bound" reference to tithing. I made that in response - possibly just the once, and way back in the discussion - to someone that insisted that it was biblically commanded. I have severally stated that the only two basis on which we can champion it are by law or voluntarily. But you have taken this one instance - out of context - and embarked on a screechy harangue claiming I am denouncing tithing as law bound. Pray tell, who is justifying it as mandated by law?

And have I not said - way back and severally - that voluntary tithing as an individual thing is just that, an individual thing. But I don't see any biblical verse that suggests it in some way accrues benefits denied those who simply giver or marks the tither out as superior/more mature.

A simple question I asked from the onset was this: "2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?" You began by evading that question and launching into deflections on issues I never asked you!

That I believe is answered by the above, but I must say that I don't see any biblical writ or need to isolate tithing as a "type" of giving, again for reasons I have often stated. There are occassions and reasons to give, but the classification into types - and I revisited 4get_me's outline - still sounds needlessly religious.

Hopefully you got out of the right side of bed this morning !

God bless
TV

@otuwe,

This is quite a busy day for me; but I'll make this as quick as can be.

otuwe:
1. you don't have to be so modest girlfriend. . .it doesnt suit u

2. so the pastors got the idea of tithing in church from paul. did anybody pay tithe to Christ just wondering

Both Christ and the apostles had things to say about tithes.

otuwe:
3 are u sure it was just mischief. from what i read he got those contradictory passages from the bible. and he was not answered, he was only given more questions

Anyone could devise "contradictory passages" - and if you'd like to revisit the thread, I'd be glad to show you his mischief.

otuwe:
4. so there is really no need for all theses churches that abound. just gather in the name of Christ and He will be there right

Gathering around His name presents the Church. If there's no need for Church at all - back then or now - Jesus would not even have mentioned it at all, let alone that He did twice over (Matt. 16:18 and 18:17).

otuwe:
5. i don't understand the fact of giving quotes for answers. most times that particular quote has no relationship with the person's question. if u don't explain quotes or relate it to real life then it shows lack of conviction. more like there is no other choice so the person has to stick with the quotes whether he understands it or not.

I've offered texts that simple answer question (unless the person in question is deliberately not interested). In others, I've explained those quotes. All depends on what the enquirer realy is seeking.

otuwe:
6. the Language of God is in His Creation (and the laws guiding it) and if u Study it properly and compare with some statements in the Bible, u would see the contradiction. if u say the bible is the Word of God, are u then saying those who never came across the bible don't know the Word of God? i really don't think so.

The Bible is the Word of God. The question is: WHERE and in WHAT texts do you find for your argument that God does not agree with everything there?

otuwe:
enjoy. . .girlfriend

You too. Hugs.

@TV01,

TV01:
Please dear, don't try and use a minor error or omission to prove your point. As ever, I'll humour you.

The error wasn't mine but YOURS - and I wasn't trying to use your errors (ever so many) to prove any point in m ine.

TV01:
Both the Levitical/Aaronic & Melchizedical priesthoods/high priesthoods are shadows and types of that which was fulfilled in Christ. Now, (and for the zillionth time ), the latter, is superior to the former, but is not the culmination of Gods plan, this - as is the whole plan of redemption - is fulfilled in Christ.

You're still maintaining the same assertive denial and have yet to show precisely from God's Word where you find that idea. This is cleverly saying it in another way - that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "replaced", and that is the one thing I requested you to demonstrate from God's Word. There is nothing to suggest in the Bible that Melchizedek's priesthood has been "REPLACED" as you asserted earlier.

TV01:
Now, Christs HP is indeed after the order of Melchizedeks in that it is by an oath, and unchanging in nature  - due to an endless life, not because of what Abraham did - and therefore He continues as HP forever.

I never suggested what you're wangling here. Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek did not in tself establish the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood. And now that you've come round seeing that Melchizedek's priesthood is unchanging, where did you get the idea initially for your error that it had been "REPLACED"?

When you commit such grave errors and come back pretending that it was "minor", it doesn't speak well of your morality. It's all well for you to accuse and slobber others; but you haven't been able to hold your integrity intact.

TV01:
Further, Christs HP while of the same order for the reasons stated, has to be considered superior, for Melchizedek is never mentioned as purging our sins, ascending through the heavens or being seated at the right hand of God, to mention a few.

The bottomline was that Christ's priesthood was not said to have "replaced" the Melchizedek priesthood - and that is what is pivotal here. Quite a few more details were not mentioned about Melchizedek; but for all that, Scripture declares two immutable things:

(a) God made Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek by an OATH
(b) Melchizedek is nowhere said to be "DEAD" and "REPLACED" by another priesthood.

You've been trying to make the Melchizedek priesthood a "type" or "pre-figure" of Christ's; whereas God never said so by any hint in Scripture. If He did say so even remotely, I've been asking you to clearly demonstrate the point from Scripture, and not the dribbling you've been offering.

TV01:
Indeed, one of the main thrusts of Hebrews - as I said earlier - is to highlight the excellency of the Lords High Priesthood, by contrasting the two OT orders and showing how The Lords excells in all areas. I would ask that you revisit ch. 9 to asee the further comparion, this time b/w the Aaronic HP and the Lord as HP. A most beautiful exposition of the culminating day of atonement as shadowed by the HP appointed by law and fulfilled by The Lord.

How unfussy is that ?

With all due respect, I've studied the entire book of Hebrews - even going back to the constructs of the original language that are available. That the thrust of book as being the excellency of the priesthood of Christ is not in doubt; but that is not the ONLY thing that the book of Hebrews seeks to establish. That He is far superior to angels (ch. 1 & 2); that He is superior to Moses (ch. 3); that His rest supersedes all others and is the true Sabbath (ch. 4); that He is called after the order of Melchizedek by divine oath (ch. 5-7). . . and that the Father disciplines His chidlren (ch. 12), are all matters and more covered in Hebrews.

But NOWHERE is there the slightest hint to your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"!! If after all that have gone in my arguments, you now see the Melchizedek priesthood as an "UNCHANGING" priesthood, where then does the Bible teach that the "unchanging priesthood" has been "REPLACED"?!? What is the basis for "REPLACING" an "UNCHANGING priesthood"? Where in God's Word is that fallacy taught at all? Where are the verses that say so?

You make such a colossal error and come back pretending it was "minor". How dishonest can you get?

TV01:
In truth, I consider that question rather odd, but in my early morning "Gentlemanly" phase I'll do as you ask.

The question is not odd - it was offered for the same dribbling assertions you made to circumvent the core concerns of what was being offered because you can be calm enough to follow Scripture, but must necessarily run ahead with your thoughts.

TV01:
From the back, Abraham by paying a tithe to Melchizedek was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood. As the Aaronic/Levitical came from his - Abrahams - loins. Symbollically therefore - and as the lesser is blessed by the greater - it signifies this superiority between the two orders.

Without being subtle, could you please show me where it is written that Abraham had any idea of the Levitical priesthood? How could he have been "acknowledging" the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood when in fact there's nothing to indicate that he knew ANYTHING about the Levitical priesthood?

The reason why you find the questions odd is because you pretend to be reading issues "from the back" and yet not really doing so. If we had to go "back" to the account in Genesis, nothing there suggests that Abraham could have been trying to compare and/contrast Melchizedek's priesthood to ANY OTHER; let alone coming up with the idea that Abraham in himself "was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority" of the Melchizedek priesthood! If English means anything to you, the word "superiority" is used when making comparison between two factors or values! Abraham could not have been making any contrast between Melchizedek and Levi (the latter of which he knew nothing about) before he could "demonstrate/acknowledge" that Melchizedek was "superior"! Who was Abraham comparing Melchizedek with?!?

You'd have to go back and do a study on both passages in Genesis and Hebrews before making bloviate statements. The basic question here has been: "What prompted Abraham to tithe to Melchizedek?" Was it a "MANDATE". . . "COERCION". . . "COMMAND". . . "FORCE". . or an other legalistic term with which you have been once and again connecting to TITHES and thereby cheating your adulators with all along?

TV01:
It is not some deeply embedded, little known revelation or hidden code to NTC to tithe.

I didn't make it any of that.

TV01:
And no Abraham himself wasn't doing the contrasting, he may not even have known the significance of his action, but as the bible says, the prophets of old inquired and searched dilligently, but it was to us they were ministering.

Good for you! I'm glad that you can come back in one same post and defeat your own assumption. Just above, you made the case that "Abraham by paying a tithe to Melchizedek was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood"; now you're hardly done with that before swinging your own sword across your middle region by denying the same premise: "And no Abraham himself wasn't doing the contrasting"! You're just boxing shadows, TV01. Neither here nor there. I've offered that you go back and calmly see that you've imprisoned your mind with issues that are not found in the Bible; rather than pedantically and sarcastically try to litter this thread with your inconsistencies.

TV01:
Happy now?

Over what?

@TV01,

TV01:
Simply not true. I repeatedly and concisely summarised the fact that if you cannot distinguish the benefits or accroutements of voluntary tithing from normal simple giving in response to need - primarily - or to bless, them it is a mute point. I have said this repeatedly, but in your drive to nail me, you picked up on one incidence - after I had repeated it ceaselessly - were I wasn't as concise, and tried to make that the basis of the discussion.

Rubbish! You have an affinity for making bloviate assertions that you can't defend when asked to proffer texts in Scripture for them. If you felt "nailed" because you can't think of anything more sorry than that, too bad - because that was a self-afflicted injury. When I gave texts to help you think a bit more clearly on that point, you came back with an overblown ego to claim that I was diverting the topic! Concise or not, most of the questions I offered YOU were cleverly evaded; and in your lame attempt to put on a weathered cosmetic on the latest, you still have been unable to simply demonstrate where in God's WORD your assertion is taught that Melchizedek's priesthood has been REPLACED! I've no worries about your inconsistencies; but don't humour me with your drabe dishonesty laced with a pharisaic "God bless" at the end of your ribald fallacies.

TV01:
Likewise the "law-bound" reference to tithing. I made that in response - possibly just the once, and way back in the discussion - to someone that insisted that it was biblically commanded. I have severally stated that the only two basis on which we can champion it are by law or voluntarily. But you have taken this one instance - out of context - and embarked on a screechy harangue claiming I am denouncing tithing as law bound. Pray tell, who is justifying it as mandated by law?

In the first instance, I was not that "someone" that insisted it was "commanded" - and my subsequent posts will make it clear that I don't see tithing as a matter of "MANDATE, COERCION, COMPULSION. . . or FORCE". It should have been clear to you from the onset; but no, since you wanted to keep bringing the question of "mandated" tithes (as if that had anything to do with my persuasion), I had to put it to rest.

And this weathered appeal to my quoting you out of context is another bunkum. I asked you several times after you made that inference if I was misquoting you, and that you please showed how. Did you even attempt it at all? You're not amusing enough in your quiddity. All this lullaby came about on one thing: the question I asked yet again as to where you find God's Word denouncing Tithes the way you have been doing - and up until now, you don't even have the descency of a man to admit your serpent-fanged hypocrisy on that has no place in God's Word. Who else has denounced TITHES as "religiously-perverse" but YOU?!? Where do you read that kind of denunciation on TITHES in the Bible?

TV01:
And have I not said - way back and severally - that voluntary tithing as an individual thing is just that, an individual thing. But I don't see any biblical verse that suggests it in some way accrues benefits denied those who simply giver or marks the tither out as superior/more mature.

I won't be tedious to you to proffer text for the idea that "voluntary tithing" is just that - an individual thing (as if I even tried to argue against it). Once and again, my question was simple enough as to whether there was any blessing enunciated in God's Word for any type of giving at all. Because you can't be simple enough, you circle right rund that question and launched into something else I never asked you! The texts several others and myself have offered you as to whether they state the same thing as you asserted have received nothing other than the same evasion. Did you attempt to offer an answer to that question yet?

TV01:
That I believe is answered by the above, but I must say that I don't see any biblical writ or need to isolate tithing as a "type" of giving, again for reasons I have often stated. There are occassions and reasons to give, but the classification into types - and I revisited 4get_me's outline - still sounds needlessly religious.

If you had anything to that outline in 4get_me's, why haven't you attempted to post it to show that he was most certainly mistaken? This lazy excuse you typically give off when you can't deal with an issue is now grown out of use. He did not get his persuasions from a magazine or soft-sell, I'm sure - and I would have expected you to offer something that is not "needlessly religious" to show indeed that the Bible did not teach what he offered! What you demand of others, you yet have not been able to demonstrate even after they show you where you get it wrong!

TV01:
Hopefully you got out of the right side of bed this morning !

I did. You should've asked yourself what part of your bed you fell off from yesterday with your antiquated behaviour.

@ Pilgrim,

Up all night were we? Man, you are tetchy today.

I'm in fine fettle and feeling somewhat magnanimous, I'll continue to overlook you rancid vituperation. Maybe it wopuld help if we could clarify some particulars.

Would you be so kind as to summarise your position on tithing.
~ Is it madatory? or is it voluntary?
~ If it's voluntary how does it differ from "giving"?
~ What benefits accrue to tithers that do not to givers?
~ Why do you believe that HP is somehow typified/validated by the paying of a tithe.

Then we can move on to others such as
~ How and who is supposed to recieve tithe in this age like Melchizededk did
~ What happens after that

See short consice posts, no obsfucation, dodgery pokery, upside down Greek or inside out English. Just short concise questions and answers.

I'm happy me !

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:
Up all night were we? Man, you are tetchy today.

I'm not - even though I'm quite busy today.

TV01:
I'm in fine fettle and feeling somewhat magnanimous, I'll continue to overlook you rancid vituperation. Maybe it wopuld help if we could clarify some particulars.

Don't make me laugh so loud, TV01. Several times yesterday I kept 'overlooking' your vitriol until your answer came: "you don't nko? Like I care" - remember? If you don't want a discussion, let me know - and you'd better be prepared not to care when I start.

TV01:
Would you be so kind as to summarise your position on tithing.
~ Is it madatory? or is it voluntary?
~ If it's voluntary how does it differ from "giving"?
~ What benefits accrue to tithers that do not to givers?
~ Why do you believe that HP is somehow typified/validated by the paying of a tithe.

I've offered clearly what my persuasions on all those are - go over them and if there's anything you HONESTLY don't get clear, please let me know.

TV01:
Then we can move on to others such as
~ How and who is supposed to recieve tithe in this age like Melchizededk did
~ What happens after that

When you deal with the questions I offered in connection to those, we'd spend less time debating endlessly yet again over the same issues.

TV01:
See short consice posts, no obsfucation, dodgery pokery, upside down Greek or inside out English. Just short concise questions and answers.

Thank you - I did the same, NO?

TV01:
I'm happy me !

More here - and to you.

@otuwe,

This is quite a busy day for me; but I'll make this as quick as can be.

pilgrim this statement is best suited to TV01 cos u guys have alot to post to each other.

the only thing i have to say is dont call the bible Word of God. bible, scripture and all the likes should be enough to describe it not Word of God. except u r saying the romans are the ones writing God's Word.

in the begining was the Word (the bible was not in existence then) and the Word was with God(am sure He didnt have the Bible) and the Word was God(am sure it wasnt refering to the bible)

the bible is the bible, it is not the word of God.

Christ is the Word incarnate and since He didnt write the Bible, the Bible is not the word. its only a spiritual Book.