₦airaland Forum

Finally it is all a matter of free will. If you wish to tithe with a good heart and intention then God will reward you. If you wish not to it is all up to you.
God Bless you all

@pilgrim.1
how body?

While I admire the knowledge you have on Biblical issues and agree with you on most issues, I have to say that I disagree completely with you on this tithing issue

pilgrim.1:
Nehemiah 10:37-38

~ verse 38 shows that the tithe of the tithes were
the collective tithes of Israel, and not that of the Levites
~ we can see how these are not confused when we come
to Malachi 3:8 - "In tithes and offerings."


Now, ask yourself if Nehemiah 10:38 is what was happening in Numbers 18? Here:

~ 'and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes
unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house.'

Where do we find this in the LAW? If you can find this, you will see what the commentators missed.

Now, where did James Fausset get that idea from - that the Levites were to give a tenth to the pries[b]ts[/b] (plural)? What happened to giving the tithes to Aaron?

Please carefully go through, and you will see what those godly men missed out. We cannot just jump at their ideas and keep promoting them, even when they happen to be incorrect.

I am not quoting anyone, just the understanding that the Spirit of God has given to me

I want you to take a closer look at Neh 10: 38-39,

38. A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they recieve the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the House of our God, to the store trooms of the treasury. (The NIV Rainbow Study Bible)

The priests and Levites also gave tithes after they had received the tithes of the Children of Israel, and it clearly states that they gave a tenth (10%) of the tithes not 1%.

@All

I am really saddened by some of what is being postulated on this thread. I had been somewhat remiss by not following as closely as I should, so read a few pages back to try and pick up some lines of enquiry and themes that were being explored.

I must also confess that I didn't read ab initio neither did I cover all that I had missed, but I saw enough to cause me grave concern. I have mixed feelings - not about the issue in question - about the motivation behind some of the postings here. I'm sensing something else, but I shall hold counsel for now.

In as much as I have no problems with indviduals who unilaterally or corporately choose to tithe, that is based on my belief that the walk with God is essentially an individual thing. And I believe that God will in His own time and according to His own purpose enlighten/deliver those who truly seek Him.

Do I need to repeat that I believe the paying or enforcing or supporting of a tithe on the basis of the law and prophets is wrong and potentially dangerous? And doing so on the basis of Abrahams one off tithe of spoils to Melchizedek at best misguided?

But do I for one minute believe, that even if my stance on tithing if 100% correct, it makes me in some way better or spiritually superior or even closer to God than someone who takes the opposite stance. No, no, no. Do I believe the essence of Christianity is doctrinal excellence? Again, no, no and thrice no. It's one of the reasons I no longer engage like before. I do not seek - if it indeed exists - doctrinal excellence as I do not believe that is key - although it may well derive frm - a closer walk with God and knowing The Lord

I don't want us to become tedious or way tiresome to one another, neither do I necessarily want us to abandon what has been a for the most part a wothwhile discussion.

I'm not totally sure of the way forward, but perhaps is we discussed Christian life in the NT, with an emphasis on the daily lives of the saints and elders, the injunctions about giving we will recieve further insight. Perhaps we could - even on a seperate thread - consider what predicated giving and distribution in the NT, how and what collections or aid were used for,and further, how in this dispensation one would worship The Lord with physical gifts.


May The Lords light shine.

God bless
TV

Hi @affee,

How body?

It's great to have people disagree with my submissions - that is quite a healthy sign and a grace to help me query my own assumptions, so that I'm not forcing my own ideas on others. My principle for doing this is found in 1 Tim. 4:16 ~~

    'Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them:
     for in doing this thou shalt both save
            ^(a) thyself,
            ^(b)and them that hear thee.

I should be careful both for myself and those who chance upon reading what I offer.

affee:
I want you to take a closer look at Neh 10: 38-39,

38. A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they recieve the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the House of our God, to the store trooms of the treasury. (The NIV Rainbow Study Bible)

affee:
The priests and Levites also gave tithes after they had received the tithes of the Children of Israel, and it clearly states that they gave a tenth (10%) of the tithes not 1%.

I deeply appreciate your view here; however, I think so many people keep making a huge mistake here. I humbly submit that some Bible commentators and some versions (e.g., Douay Rheims) find that verse very difficult to fit their idea - because they have largely ignored preceeding verses.

Here's what's happening in Nehemiah 10:38 & 39 -

     (a) that verse was not talking about the tithe of the Levites

When a lot of people ignore the previous verses and ancillary references, they miss precisely the fact that the Levites and the priests were involved here. What "priests" are we talking about here? There are two classes of them:

              ~ the 'priest' (chief among others), v. 38
              ~ the priests (several others), vv. 37 & 39

These two groups were working with the Levites when these tithes were taken from Israel - but nowhere did those verses say that the Levites were giving their own 10%. To assume it so, is simply to read into the verse and confuse the whole context (a case which is known as eisegesis).


     (b) that verse was talking particularly about the tithe of Israel

It was the collective tithes of Israel (and not a portion of the Levites) that was taken into the treasure house and chambers of God. Why would I think so? For the following reasons:

              ~ for the fact that verse 38 simply said so

              ~ verse 38 did not say it was the tithe of the Levites

              ~ verse 38 simply said that the Levites shall "bring up the tithe of the tithes"
                 unto the house of God;
                 it did not say that the Levites would offer up their own tithes and take it to
                 the treasure house.

Now, using the principle of 2 Peter 1:20 ("that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", we need to seek out other verses to see what was happening in Nehemiah 10:37-38. Aside from the fact that some commentators have simply run with their thinking, my question earlier was this:
      ___________________________________________________________________

       Now, ask yourself if Nehemiah 10:38 is what was happening in Numbers 18? Here:

              ~ 'and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes
                  unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house.'

      Where do we find this in the LAW?
      If you can find this, you will see what the commentators missed.
      ___________________________________________________________________

The reason why I asked us to go back to the LAW where they got this practice from is because Nehemiah 10:36 says that they were doing all those things "as it is written in the law", particularly as appertained to the priests that minister in the house of God.

You will see that the LAW itself warned again and again that the Levites had no inheritance - thus, they could not be said to be having any income (whether or farm produce or otherwise). What the LAW asked them to offer for themselves was the heave of "the tithes of Israel" - please go back and see what it says about the heave offering in reference to Israel's tithes in Num. 18:24 -

    "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD"

It was this heave offering that the Levites were to take just 1% (10% of 10%) and reckon as their own. Do the maths - anybody knows that 10% of 10% is not equal to 10%!! That is deliberately falsifying the figures to fit our own presumptions - and that is what the commentators have done!

                   10/100 = 10%

                   10% of 10% = 10/100  x 10/100 = 1/100 = 1%.

No matter how anyone slices it, you cannot say that "10% of 10%  =  10%". . . anyone who hears that coming from Christians will shake their heads at us in pity! Let's not sweat at this matter - it is simply 1% and not 10%. Why so?

Back to Nehemiah 10:38 - "and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house."

Wait a mo, let us ask again: whose tithes was the "tithe of the tithes"? Many rush to say it was the tithes of the Levites - because we only assume it so; but the verse never said so. We only need to notice a few things in that verse as highlighted there:

               - the house of our God
               - the chambers
               - the treasure house

Have you noticed here what was happening? Read Ezra 8 and see for yourself. Here we shall see what was taken into the treasure house, the chamber and the house of God:

    (a) twelve chief of the priests separated (v. 24)

    (b) the silver, and the gold, and the vessels were weighed out (v. 25)

    (c) the silver and the gold are a freewill offering unto the LORD God of your fathers (v. 28)

    (d) here's where the answer to our problem begins (v. 29):

                'Watch ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them before
                 the chief of the priests and the Levites,
                 and chief of the fathers of Israel, at Jerusalem,
                 in the chambers of the house of the LORD'

                 'So took the priests and the Levites the weight of the silver,
                  and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem
                  unto the house of our God.' (v. 30)

    (e) the priests and the Levites who measured these things out were named (v. 33)



Of course, I could spend some time and go into detail to show all these matters. But why all these? Because we have been running with the idea that what was written in Nehemiah 10:38 was the tithes of the Levites, whereas it never said so. Someone called my attention to the Douay Rheims version, arguing that it says so - I asked the kind lady if Genesis 3:15 was accurately rendered in the same version. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Let us not run with the ideas of men who bend these things to fir into their own thinking. There is simply no way anyone can slice this verse to teach that 10% of 10% is still equal to 10% - that would be adjusting a new trend of Arithmentics that we can't defend!

I shall come back and share some more on the matters of the Treasury - and only then I think it would dawn on us why tithes are not always a matter of 10% every single time!

Warmest regards.

TITHING IS A BIBLE DOCTRINE AND THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY ABOUT IT.
THE PRINCIPLE OF TITHING, AS IT WERE, IS NOT SOMETHING WE ARE DOING FOR THE SAKE OF GOD ALMIGHTY. IT IS ACTUALLY FOR OUR PERSONAL SUCCESS. THUS I WILL ONLY AFFIRM THAT 'IF YOU DO NOT LIVE A TITHE LIFE, YOU WILL DEFINITELY HAVE A TIGHT LIFE'.
NEVER FORGET THE PROMISE, WHICH I CALL CHALLENGE , 'AND SEE IF I WILL NOT OPEN THE WINDOWS OF HEAVEN, ' FOR WHOSE GOOD, GOD? NEVER! FOR OUR GOOD, !

Hi Nasogold,

Nasogold:
THUS I WILL ONLY AFFIRM THAT 'IF YOU DO NOT LIVE A TITHE LIFE, YOU WILL DEFINITELY HAVE A TIGHT LIFE'.

Lol, please be gracious to our brethren - they are not forcing us to give up tithing; they just want us to share with them step by step why we feel persuaded to tithe and yet still maintain that it is not to be compelled on anyone. Can we gently all share? Blessings.

@TV01,

TV01:
I'm not totally sure of the way forward, but perhaps is we discussed Christian life in the NT, with an emphasis on the daily lives of the saints and elders, the injunctions about giving we will recieve further insight. Perhaps we could - even on a seperate thread - consider what predicated giving and distribution in the NT, how and what collections or aid were used for,and further, how in this dispensation one would worship The Lord with physical gifts.

I feel you, bro. I understand how these matters come across to us sometimes, and I would have "taken a chill" as I said earlier. It just seems that the interest to open up this most enigmatic subject continues as we all would like to know what we can share step by step on the many assumptions we hold on both sides of the divide. I was hoping to relate with others and clear these toothing problems best as I could before coming back to offer some help to this:

Why don't Catholics, Anglicans, JW or others pay tithe
What is the tithe used for
Is it's use biblically prescribed
What would happen if it was eliminated and all giving became freewill and disbursement became needs based?

We shall get there. . . patience, bro. . patience.

Blessings.

@pilgrim.1
I hail thee

okay, okay I get it,
I never really liked maths, so seeing that calculation has made me concour

On a serious note
I still no gree o

but every man with his/her own understanding.
I pray the Holy Spirit opens my inner mind to understand, if and only if I am wrong.

Quote from: sarmy on Yesterday at 01:40:37 PM
2. To be given to those that minister to God or for God’s word propagation (Melkizedek)

Melchizedek did not have such a need - which is why I have often said that this tithe issue is not always a matter of "need-driven". What "need" did a King have - when his name was "King of righteousness" and "king of peace" (Hebrews 7:2)?

Pilgrim you are definitely wrong with this one, Melckisedek had earthly needs to be met by Abraham's tithe. The priesthood was not a magical one. Remember Jesus Christ had physical needs met by many. he was hungry and was fed by different people at various bible accounts. The devil even tempted him on the basis of His 'needs'.
At no time are we told in the bible that Melchisedek did not possess human flesh with physical needs and i want to believe Melckisedek did not burn the tithe of spoils on to the Most High.

Pilgrim is looking hard for where money as 'giving' in NT is mentioned, can she enlighten uson what Annanias and Saphira received in return for the sale of their property for which they falsely laid only a part before the Apostles.

Pilgrim is trying to show us tithing was instituted before the law and therefore can not be abrogated by the end of the law but has failed to show this from the bible.
She has also not being able to show from the bible any refrence by the chldren of Isreal to Abrahams tithe to Melchisedek in instituting the Levitical order of tithe as a derivative of Abrahams faith giving. Just her own private interpretation

@anonimi,


Quote from: anonimi on Yesterday at 04:35:21 PM
It seems you missed my response eons ago here

Thanks - and that was why I pointed out this also, from where Yomi got his thoughts from.

Pilgrim.1,

does the above mean that you knew I responded long ago and yet you wrote:

Quote from: pilgrim.1 on Yesterday at 02:45:35 PM
@anonimi,

I wasn't missing anything - unless you want me to bore you with the links where I made the case lucid. You guys started out by directly referring to tithes as a 'lie', 'false doctrine', and a 'fraud'. I asked simply that we look away from those who have abused it and encourage ourselves to look into the Word to see what it says. Did you ever oblige that? What was your response to that other than come back reposting Yomisays and his ungodly attack and pretentions of Adeboye? I asked you directly if Yomisays represented your views - you have forever ducked that one and now claiming I was not paying attention all along. What is your question again, dear brother?

Please clarify before I comment further.

However, sister Pilgrim,
I wonder why in one breadth you concured with a poster that christian tithing originated from Abrahams tithe to Melckisedek and then go on to teach about Levitical tithing mathematics and calculations.

I also wonder that you defend the often misquoted Malachi 3:10 as applicable to all isrealite when prophet Malachi opened the message with refrence to misdeed of the Levites and Priests. the prophet made refrence to Judah(only 1 tribe) to show where they've also got it wrong. Is it the whole nation of Isreal that presented blind sheeps to the alter? No it was the levites
No you not that that each tribe of Isreal is a nation in it's right and at points in time of history there own kings (reference King of Judah)?

@Ovamboland,

Good morning, and I trust you're enjoying your week?

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim you are definitely wrong with this one, Melckisedek had earthly needs to be met by Abraham's tithe. The priesthood was not a magical one.

I'm quite delighted to be called back to this so I could learn from others. The one problem in your submission is that you're assuming rather than taking your thoughts directly from the Word. Could I now show you why I'm not convinced that your reaction is appropriate? Here:

1. First of all, I don't remember saying anywhere that the priesthood was a magical one. People tend to over-react on issues and then begin to spin out of circle by bringing in arguments that nobody has mentioned. The one thing I have decided to do is slow down and take the points step by step only in reference to what people are saying here in recent times, because earlier than that others have felt I was running ahead of their speed. All the same, not a single time did I infer that there was magical in the priesthood - so where do you connect me with your "definitely wrong" reaction?

2. You should simply have taken me to Scripture and shown me where Abraham's tithe was to meet Melchizedek's needs - did you show that? No. If I was the one that was making vacant statements such as you have, the house would come crashing on pilgrim.1 - but I've goodnews for you: Abraham's tithes were not given to meet Melchizedek's needs. Let me show you from the Word:

   (a) Melchizedek was already a KING and PRIEST when he met Abraham - Hebrews 7:1

   (b) His GREATNESS was categorically emphasized when he met Abraham - Hebrews 7:4

   (c)  Melchizedek was the one who brought supplies (bread and wine) to Abraham
         and not the other way round (see Genesis 14:18 and Hebrews 7:1)

   (d) The less (Abraham) is blessed of the better (Melchizedek) - Hebrews 7:7

The description of Melchizedek's greatness in Scripture nullifies your presumption, my dear Ovamboland. If this King of Salem had any need, his own city (Salem - same as Jerusalem, Psa.76:2) would have provided that very need, for he was not king of an empty land. It was significant here that Melchizedek (being the priest of the Most High God) came out to meet Abraham - this was not because of any material need; for to be so presumptious as such, is simply to ignore what the Word says and drive your own ideas into the text (eisegesis).

Ovamboland:
Remember Jesus Christ had physical needs met by many. he was hungry and was fed by different people at various bible accounts. The devil even tempted him on the basis of His 'needs'.

In other words, Jesus went about collecting tithes, ba?

You see, I've simply left you guys who are so opposed to tithes to keep confusing yourselves. The problem you have against tithes is driving you to keep reacting out of spin that you come back making assumptions that you can't defend. Rather than run ahead of my own thoughts, my approach this time around is to help you examine your own arguments and see how very untenable they are.

Nevertheless, indeed many people ministered unto Him (Luke 8:2-3); but what if they never did - would He have suffered lack at any point? If the Lord Jesus wanted His needs met, He knew how to do so without anyone's contributions, gifts or tithes. Why? He who fed the five thousand (Matt. 14:14-21) and the four thousand (Matt. 15:32-38) was well able to provide for His own needs if it came to that. The devil knew this very thing about the power of Christ, and that was why he tempted Him to turn stones to bread (Matt. 4:3-4). Yet, Christ would not abuse this power, for His desire was to do the Father's will and obtain redemption for us.

Ovamboland:
At no time are we told in the bible that Melchisedek did not possess human flesh with physical needs and i want to believe Melckisedek did not burn the tithe of spoils on to the Most High.

You may "want to believe" anything you feel like reading into the text - it's not my worry. I don't remember ever saying that Melchizedek did not possess human flesh, so what are you arguing here? The point is that the Bible does not teach what you want to believe about Abraham's tithes being to meet the needs of Melchizedek - to infer it so is to drive your own reaction into Scripture, rather than reason "out of" the Scriptures (Acts 17:2).

Dear brother, let us calm down and take our Bibles in our hands, drop the ideas we have adopted to to just react against what we don't know, open our eyes and hearts, read what the Bible says, and let God show us what we have been missing all along. This is why I sometimes am not too given to commentaries - because i have come across so many "commentaries" that are helpful, but in so many places such commentaries are skewed. This is the dreason why when we come here on this platform, the consistent questioning of our queries will bring us to just one point: the undeniable and irrefutable declaration of Scripture. No man's otiose arguments can stand that test. I hope you find these matters helpful to the heart - and God bless you as you do so.

Shalom.

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
However, sister Pilgrim,
I wonder why in one breadth you concured with a poster that christian tithing originated from Abrahams tithe to Melckisedek and then go on to teach about Levitical tithing mathematics and calculations.

You don't need to wonder about it. When I started mentioning the fact that the NT shows us the "principles" of the OT on this subject, the house almost came crashing on me. That was why I calmly tried to simply allow people to keep on driving their thoughts on 10% and all types of percentages until I brought in the 1% in Nehemiah 10:38. My point was simple: if those who shout against tithes are too driven with their tradition to even think for a moment, then they would come back showing how very tedious their position was on this matter - not to me; but rather to them. I have asked long ago to examine the reason why no percentages were specifically asssumed in the NT for tithes - because the apsotles were trying to direct our minds to something more intrinsic than mere 10%. Since una no wan hear word, come back and begin to kid yourselves that "10% of 10% = 10%" - go and write that in O'level maths and see what you get!

This is the type of childish reasoning we go about with and people laugh at Christians for assuming these issues. Instead of us to sit down and calmly reason, we let our preconceived assumptions drive us to extremum and then become too reactive when others show us that our "Christian arithmentics" is a laughable imbroglio. Please show me, Ovamboland, how you have calculated "10% of 10% = 10%" - that's all you need to do, rather than trying to take issues with me. This is not a personality vexation, that's why I'm asking you to calm down and reason along, or just keep up with your euphemistic games and dres warm.

Ovamboland:
I also wonder that you defend the often misquoted Malachi 3:10 as applicable to all isrealite when prophet Malachi opened the message with refrence to misdeed of the Levites and Priests. the prophet made refrence to Judah(only 1 tribe) to show where they've also got it wrong. Is it the whole nation of Isreal that presented blind sheeps to the alter? No it was the levites

I'm not given to rants, dear brother. The word simply says: "Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation" (Malachi 3:9) - and that is enough for me. If you have an argument about that, turn upwards and shake your fists at God Himself who said so, if it helps you.

Ovamboland:
No you not that that each tribe of Isreal is a nation in it's right and at points in time of history there own kings (reference King of Judah)?

Look at you. .  Phew, make I calm down.   Bros Ovamboland, I should rather make friends with you and show you what you don't know. So let me calmly ask you a simple question: if you're supposing that each tribe of Israel was a nation, are you supposing that there were TWELVE NATIONS of Israel? Abeg go study the matter small-small first, so that we go talk better.

Blessings.

pilgrim.1:
I did not ignore your reminders - and we shall get there subsequently. For now, could you point us where money was specifically mentioned in the type of giving that God ordained for you in the NT?

My dearest pilgim.1 whereas biblical tithes was specifically commanded and defined clearly under the law we know that biblical tithes was strictly agricultural products. However giving in the new testaments is "as your heart desires" in other wards you are free to decide what to give, how to give and when to give. You have the free will to decide whether you want to give in cash or kind. In summary NT giving is free will (by choice) and not by law, injunction or command so you can decide without any ordination.

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim is looking hard for where money as 'giving' in NT is mentioned, can she enlighten uson what Annanias and Saphira received in return for the sale of their property for which they falsely laid only a part before the Apostles.

I'm glad you came to Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 - because I was waiting until you guys come round and begin to embrace what you have been formerly argumentative about. No rush. Now, if you agree with the "freewill offering" of a postion in the NT, what is "only a part" doing in your submission? A part of what? How much was "a part"? Are you not trying to measure a percentage again, after arguing against it? If any man was free to give whatever "part" they wanted to, why was "only a part" in this couple's case a grievious offence? Was it compulsory that they gave everything?

I have highlighted the real reason that comes to our attention in Acts 5 - it has nothing to do with how much "part" they gave. It was rather hypocrisy and a LIE (see Atcs 5:4 & 9). This is important and should teach us a serious lesson: even your best intentions, when it is hypocritic and a lie, can earn you serious problems. The same thing here on whether we tithe or argue against tithing - on either side, when people say "just give", the careless attitude we often exhibit in this matter is what is actually revealing the state of our hearts.

Meanwhile, those who have been shouting against "money" in the case of tithing in the OT should show us where there was any instructions specifically in the epistles for giving "money". If it is okay to scream against "money" in the OT, please show us the instruction that says give "money" in the NT.

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim is trying to show us tithing was instituted before the law and therefore can not be abrogated by the end of the law but has failed to show this from the bible.

I already have discussed it, repeated it; and if you want, I'll do the same thing I did earlier by posting the links:

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1216.html#msg2884413

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2885787

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888222

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888480

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888555

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1312.html#msg2908410

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1344.html#msg2918203

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2918691

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2921847

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2922746  

Rather than make blank statements, go there and show from all the scripture references that I was injecting words into the verses that the Bible never mentioned.

Ovamboland:
She has also not being able to show from the bible any refrence by the chldren of Isreal to Abrahams tithe to Melchisedek in instituting the Levitical order of tithe as a derivative of Abrahams faith giving. Just her own private interpretation

Check my recommendations above.

One thing I find really hilarious is the lazy attitude of thinkers who just come to make noise and yet have nothing to offer. If I have to disagree or agree with anyone, I do so and go directly to the scripture they are using for their argument. I don't lazily come back and claim they have not been able to do this or that - I go directly and quote the verses and show what they did or did not do. Can you do so?

Cheers.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Pilgrim.1,

does the above mean that you knew I responded long ago and yet you wrote:


Please clarify before I comment further.

Yes, I saw your terse response earlier, and that was why since I didn't see you categorically respond to my query, I had to reply as quote in order to make you respond more cogently. I would have said the same thing again, but I rather posted the link where Yomi got his thoughts from - because he said so himself. Is there something I was missing?

How to give to God as preached by the final authority himself (Jesus Christ)

Matthew 25:35-40:
35For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you [a]brought Me together with yourselves and welcomed and entertained and [b]lodged Me,

   36I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me [c]with help and ministering care, I was in prison and you came to see Me.(A)

   37Then the just and upright will answer Him, Lord, when did we see You hungry and gave You food, or thirsty and gave You something to drink?

   38And when did we see You a stranger and welcomed and entertained You, or naked and clothed You?

   39And when did we see You sick or in prison and came to visit You?

   40And the King will reply to them, Truly I tell you, in so far as you did it for one of the least [[d]in the estimation of men] of these My brethren, you did it for Me.(B)

Clearly this type of giving is more important to Jesus christ than any other type of "christian" giving because this was the type of giving Jesus preached about all the time and not church giving in any form or shape. However this is not to say that church giving is not important, it is just that contrary to what your pastors would like you to believeit is not as important as giving to the needy.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dearest pilgim.1 whereas biblical tithes was specifically commanded and defined clearly under the law we know that biblical tithes was strictly agricultural products.

When will you guys get this point I made already about not basing my arguments for the tithe upon the LAW?!?   Again a reminder:
_____________________________________

I do not base my arguments of the tithes on the LAW:

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1216.html#msg2884413

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2885787 (succinct here)

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888222 (reiterated)

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888480 (addressed again)

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888555 (again outlined)
______________________________________

The problem here is that the moment you see tithes, everything about you just switches to the LAW. Brotherly, if you wan talk about the LAW in the NT, say so and let us rub minds on that one! There are questions I would like to ask you if you as a Christian are basing your thoughts on the LAW, and then I would like to see how you react.

KunleOshob:
However giving in the new testaments is "as your heart desires" in other wards you are free to decide what to give, how to give and when to give. You have the free will to decide whether you want to give in cash or kind. In summary NT giving is free will (by choice) and not by law, injunction or command so you can decide without any ordination.

Lol, I didn't ask you for "how", I asked you about "WHAT"?  Since you are so used to arguing aagainst "money" for the OT case, please show me your "money" in the NT. If you can't do so, what is your problem with those who gave silver and gold in the OT? Just what is your problem with that?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Clearly this type of giving is more important to Jesus christ than any other type of "christian" giving because this was the type of giving Jesus preached about all the time and not church giving in any form or shape. However this is not to say that church giving is not important, it is just that contrary to what your pastors would like you to believeit is not as important as giving to the needy.

Hmm, I hope our brethren who argue against tithes will see the highlights. I'm not the one makiing a distinction of "TYPES of giving" in the NT now. . . and yet, I'm not the one here saying that one is important than the other. When I mentioned something akin to this, there were shouts. Well done, Kunle. I'll keep this in my fav and wave it for those who rave that pilgrim.1 misbehaves.

pilgrim.1:
@KunleOshob,

When will you guys get this point I made already about not basing my arguments for the tithe upon the LAW?!? Again a
I do not base my arguments of the tithes on the LAW:
The problem here is that the moment you see tithes, everything about you just switches to the LAW. Brotherly, if you wan talk about the LAW in the NT, say so and let us rub minds on that one! There are questions I would like to ask you if you as a Christian are basing your thoughts on the LAW, and then I would like to see how you react.

Lol, I didn't ask you for "how", I asked you about "WHAT"? Since you are so used to arguing aagainst "money" for the OT case, please show me your "money" in the NT. If you can't do so, what is your problem with those who gave silver and gold in the OT? Just what is your problem with that?

If you don't base your arguments on tithing on the law why do you constantly quote fromthe same law to buttress you points?
As i said in my earlier post NT giving is "as your heart desires" so you can choose whether it is in cash or kind, i am sure this statement adequately answers your question about using money in the new testament, i wonder why you refused to see it. i think the problem here is your definition (meaning) of tithes which is entirely deifferent from how the bible defines it and the average christian as been made to beleive it is. Hence the constant disagreement all the time. Your definition of tithe is totally different to evrey other persons and it lacks sound scriptural basis.

Dearest affee,

affee:
On a serious note
I still no gree o

but every man with his/her own understanding.
I pray the Holy Spirit opens my inner mind to understand, if and only if I am wrong.

I really appreciate your spirit there - amazing. Nobody has to agree with anything, and I have said so. We can all be blessed from all the inputs for and/or against. God bless you dearly.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
If you don't base your arguments on tithing on the law why do you constantly quote fromthe same law to buttress you points?

Can I repeat myself on this?

[list][list]

Here is the problem for many: since pilgrim.1 says that she does not argue tithes based upon the LAW, why is she quoting the same LAW? I have my reasons, defined in only one word - PRINCIPLES.

It is not by coincidence that the apostle Paul quotes the same LAW in Numbers 18 when discussing this ministry in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. He does not say that we should apply the law in a legalistic manner; but he draws from it a principle and concludes with these words: "EVEN SO. . ".

Secondly, the argument many people make about the LAW of tithing is that we are not under the Law, but under grace. Granted. My question is simple - our friends should please explain where Paul was quoting from when he says in 1 Cor. 9:8 - "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?"

Thirdly, when I say that I do not base my discussion of the tithes upon the LAW, what I mean is this: I am not at any time seeking to "justify" the veracity of tithing as a Christian from the LAW. That is why I have often looked outside the Law and intoned that tithing came before the LAW. What the Law did not originate, it cannot abrogate in this case.

Fourthly, I have called attention to another point: the real issue of the LAW is founded on one thing: "justification". No one is justified by the works of the LAW - as is clear in the NT (Romans 3:20, 28 and Galatians 2:16). That being so, I am not seeking a justification from the LAW if I applied its principles in order to understand the significance of tithing. Tithes did not justify anybody in the OT; nor does it justify anybody in the NT.

Fifth, because tithes are not a matter of justifying anybody, I don't see the panic among those who have been screaming it that it is "dangerous" to give tithes under the LAW - when infact I am not giving tithes based upon the LAW?

You see, I could go on and discuss the LAW for another 15 points that will make Christians who argue anyhow to deeply think before they hastily draw conclusions.

[/list][/list]

I hope you will find those helpful; if otherwise, plese gee me a shout back and then I'll expatiate.

KunleOshob:
As i said in my earlier post NT giving is "as your heart desires" so you can choose whether it is in cash or kind, i am sure this statement adequately answers your question about using money in the new testament, i wonder why you refused to see it.

You're only admitting the NT never said "money" specifically - and that is the point. Which again was the reason I wanted you to bear in mind when you are too driven to argue against "money" in the OT; if otherwise, I was going to show you a few examples and ask you if you have any problem with the silver and gold in the OT in this case. We don't have to keep harping against "money" in one case when we know deep in our hearts that the NT does not specifically instruct you to give "money" as offering. We can use our God-given common sense in both cases; but since people who are against tithes have swallowed the wrong idea that it must be every single time "against money", then they need to humbly reconsider their arguments.

KunleOshob:
i think the problem here is your definition (meaning) of tithes which is entirely deifferent from how the bible defines it and the average christian as been made to beleive it is.

Maybe it is a problem for many; but you can see that the definition is not the same thing as its meaning. It is because we make this mistake (such as you have) that many people often look at how much in percentage (%) and are never able to ask themselves what exactly was the meaning of tithes in God's mind. What actually does it point to? All we see and speak about is the agricultural produce that people sit down to eat - nothing more! Whereas, God wants us to see beyond that issue and understand what the tithes were pointing to.

KunleOshob:
Hence the constant disagreement all the time. Your definition of tithe is totally different to evrey other persons and it lacks sound scriptural basis.

If it lacks Scriptural basis, they should simply go to Scripture and show that I did not quote Scripture. Is that too hard to do?

It seems like we are all going in cirlcles

-Some say tithes are false
-Others say it is not 10%
-Others say it is not for the new testament believers
-Some say it is valid

No matter what we say it doesnt matter, what matter is what God says about it and in the Bible there is a blessing for every act of obedience towards God.

For those who ask what it is used for: Keep asking

If anyone cannot make do of 90% of his or her income, neither will 100% be enough.

Be it known that there is a Blessing to tithing, I am forever a witness to that, God is my sustainance and he is always my provider so it is not a bother at all for me to tithe.

Prove to God that money is no barrier between you an Him

Every step toward self sufficiency is a step away from God.

To everyone his or her opinion but the word of God is the ultimate truth no matter what we twist and turn it to be.

Blessing to all of you

Quote from: Ovamboland on Today at 07:53:15 AM
Remember Jesus Christ had physical needs met by many. he was hungry and was fed by different people at various bible accounts. The devil even tempted him on the basis of His 'needs'.

In other words, Jesus went about collecting tithes, ba?

@ pilgrim

How are you this morning sister hope you're doing well, are hope is to learn from all thee by sharing our opinion

However you accuse me of drawing my own conclusions from bible records but what are e supposed to do? I clearly stated my understanding as my own beliefs. The above quote is a classic case of hypocrisy, how did my statement imply that Jesus went round collecting tithes? Was he not invited to dine with men? and did He not ask to dine with men?

Ovamboland:
@ pilgrim

How are you this morning sister hope you're doing well, are hope is to learn from all thee by sharing our opinion

However you accuse me of drawing my own conclusions from bible records but what are e supposed to do? I clearly stated my understanding as my own beliefs. The above quote is a classic case of hypocrisy, how did my statement imply that Jesus went round collecting tithes? Was he not invited to dine with men? and did He not ask to dine with men?

@Ovamboland,

I'm doing okay, thanks - and you?

Well, I did not mean for you to be miffed, nor intended you to become worked up. If my statements were hypocritical, bless you all the same. The reason I asked that question was simple: we're discussing tithes, and based on those you referenced (Abraham, Melchizedek and Jesus) in response to the points I submitted earlier, one would think you were still on about tithes. If you did not mean it so, what was the reason you brought in those same issues if they were not about tithes?

This is why I had asked us to focus on issues that are germane to our discussion here rather than spinning off to arguments that have no bearing upon our present concerns. For this reason also, I have not sought to discuss the LAW and circumcision, because they are not germane to the discussion on tithes (they may be helpful to mention, yes; but they are not the essential features of tithe-dsicussions).

I hope you see the point. Blessings.

Quote from: Ovamboland on Today at 08:49:55 AM
Pilgrim is looking hard for where money as 'giving' in NT is mentioned, can she enlighten uson what Annanias and Saphira received in return for the sale of their property for which they falsely laid only a part before the Apostles.

I'm glad you came to Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 - because I was waiting until you guys come round and begin to embrace what you have been formerly argumentative about. No rush. Now, if you agree with the "freewill offering" of a postion in the NT, what is "only a part" doing in your submission? A part of what? How much was "a part"? Are you not trying to measure a percentage again, after arguing against it? If any man was free to give whatever "part" they wanted to, why was "only a part" in this couple's case a grievious offence? Was it compulsory that they gave everything?

My dearest sister, it seems you have penchant for drawing wrong concluions from a text, any unbiased reader will see the Annanias and Saphira story is to show NT christians gave money to the apostles evidence of which sister Pilgrim asked for in an earlier post.

However our sisters reply is that we are trying to bring out a percentage by saying they laid a part falsely at the apostles feet. The point is they were walking in deceit and the Holy Spirit found them out. That doesn't mean they didn't give money. Is that clear enough?

How we interprete Bible verses is very important, in an ealier post (will paste it later) no one responded to, i asked for the objective of Hebrews Chapter 7. Is it to teach the ordination of tithing or to explain the Priesthood of Christ? A lot of tithe preachers hang their belief on tithing here.

Same goes for Malachi 3:10, What was Prophet Malachi's message about? How the Levitical order was being bastardised or how common Israelites have refused to give of their farm & ranch increase anymore to the Levites as done by their forefathers?

In our understanding of the Bible we need to diffrentiate where a premise is being built by the writers for our understanding (very common wit Paul's letters) and a book like proverbs where some verses are not directly related to the preceding one.

There are chapters in the NT with refrences to the OT, if we take the opening verse or the concluding verse as stand alone our understaning is at best shallow .

Sorry sister if i didn't quote Bible verses to support all my post, am still learning and don't yet have all at my finger tip and more importantly am at work (only post during short tea breaks) But i believe i'll be blessed if you can pull up verses that contradict my understanding then i can read it up in full context. You will be helping a bible student and brother

Cheers , your in learning

If tithing is not of the law fine and if it originated from Abraham fine but please answer following questions:

Did Genesis state Abraham was rich before he paid tithe to Melckisedek?

Can you state a bible verse saying he was blessed because of the tithe of spoils toMelckisedek?

Can you quote verses to show Abraham paid tithes to anyone after the tenth of spoils he gave Melckisedek?

If tithing is ordained of God how come Abraham did not teach his children and grandchildren to tithe?

Why did Jacob have to make a fresh deal with God 'if ye bless me, i will give, ' if he was taugt to tithe his income?

Quote a verse recorded were Jacob redeemed the tithe pledge or where he regularly practised it or taught his children how crucial a practise tithing is.

What was the objective of Paul for writing Hebrew Chapter 7 (1- end)? How wonderful it is to tithe spoils or explanation of the priesthood of Christ?

As promised in my last post, answers please anyone if possible with bible refrences and quotes.

The Word of God is not Opaque, it is very clear for all with sincere heart to discern and understand. He does not mince words or dodge issues.

Hey sister Pilgrim how do you post a previous comment to show the poster and time posted in quotes?

Sorry to still bother you Pilgrim.1, but I'm still not satisfied with your 1% explanations. Looking critically at Nehemiah 10:38, when we start from verse 37-39, we'll see this:

37 And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God; and the tithes of our ground unto the Levites, that the same Levites might have the tithes in all the cities of our tillage. (KJV)

Note here that the levites collected the tithes (not tithe), from the children of Israel. And note the semi-colon which separates where the offerings go to and where the tithes go to.

38 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house. (KJV)

Note also that the levites brought only the tithe of the tithes to the chambers, i.e. God's treasure house.

39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God. (KJV)

Note verse 39 states that all that were brought to the chambers were all the offerings collected (as stated in verse 37) but not all the tithes collected, they only brought the tithe of the tithes), where did the remaining tithes go to if they were not taken to the chambers? Verse 37 and 38 makes us see it went to the levites. So, in a nutshell, what went out of the pockets or barns of the Israelites, was never 1% but their tithes, which is 10%.

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
My dearest sister, it seems you have penchant for drawing wrong concluions from a text, any unbiased reader will see the Annanias and Saphira story is to show NT christians gave money to the apostles evidence of which sister Pilgrim asked for in an earlier post.

I don't have a penchant for drawing any wrong conclusions. The point was that antagonist of tithes have always maintained that there was not a single time money of any kind was involved in tithes, never mind that I have tried to reason out this issue before and it largely went overboard. Yet, when this money and percentage issue was endlessly dragged on, my approach was to bring such anatgonists to admit their own fallacies by making them own up to their denials - in which case you have brought out the same thing I was looking for. While Acts 5 shows us that money was involved, my question still remains: "who instructed them to give money"? Have you found that text yet?

If you don't understand the strain of an argument, why not ask questions? Because antagonists against tithes always argued against money, and never understood that money was involved in what was taken as tithes to the treasure house, my approach was to let these same people whip themselves until they came back to admit their own denials.

Now, if money was indeed involved in both cases of the NT and OT, why on earth have there been this hideous bias that money was a taboo in the OT tithes? What was the mention of silver and gold for in the latter prophets I already pointed to? I don't see anyone yet mentioning anything thereto. Why are people so driven that they just simply refuse to see that their own biases are not helping them fight against tithes?

Ovamboland:
However our sisters reply is that we are trying to bring out a percentage by saying they laid a part falsely at the apostles feet.

False - I did not indicate any such.

Ovamboland:
The point is they were walking in deceit and the Holy Spirit found them out. That doesn't mean they didn't give money. Is that clear enough?

Are you so confused? What is the difference now between your point of they were "walking in deceit" and my point of "hypocrisy and LIE"?!?

Ovamboland:
How we interprete Bible verses is very important, in an ealier post (will paste it later) no one responded to, i asked for the objective of Hebrews Chapter 7. Is it to teach the ordination of tithing or to explain the Priesthood of Christ? A lot of tithe preachers hang their belief on tithing here.

The possible reason why you might have been roundly ignored was because you're making noise about what has been dealt with and retired over and over again. If you cared to calm down and reason with people, I'm sure you would get responses.

Ovamboland:
Same goes for Malachi 3:10, What was Prophet Malachi's message about? How the Levitical order was being bastardised or how common Israelites have refused to give of their farm & ranch increase anymore to the Levites as done by their forefathers?

Malachi 3 - reminders:

    "Let me explain why I'm not so inclined to directly use Mal. 3:8-10
     to push the agenda of tithe."  (read it here)

     "However, it is absolutely wrong for any pastor to call down any curse
      upon any Christian for not givin" (read it here)

      "For instance, sarmy asked me a pointed question about using Malachi 3
       to force people to tithe. I shared with him why my answer is NO;
       and opened up a few reasons why I don't think anyone is correct to
       curse any Christian." (read it here)

Your problem is forgiveable - you just jump in, shakara up and down and assume that your queries are breaking news and nobody has ever read, heard, asked, or even touched them before. That is why these days, instead of repeating myself ad hominem on anything, I'll just simply post the links for your guys - and any rascal play claiming I did not say anything will then be met with a straight no-nonsense talk. I've told you before: this is not a personal disenfranchisement that you go about talking carelessly about me. if you want to discuss, please do; if otherwise, pretend you don't notice me. Thank you.

Ovamboland:
In our understanding of the Bible we need to diffrentiate where a premise is being built by the writers for our understanding (very common wit Paul's letters) and a book like proverbs where some verses are not directly related to the preceding one.

There are chapters in the NT with refrences to the OT, if we take the opening verse or the concluding verse as stand alone our understaning is at best shallow .

How many times have I quoted 2 Peter 1:20 in reference to giving a verse a private meaning or interpretation? Why do you think I have been comparing verses to highlight any point I make?!

Ovamboland:
Sorry sister if i didn't quote Bible verses to support all my post, am still learning and don't yet have all at my finger tip and more importantly am at work (only post during short tea breaks)

No worries - good to know that I'm not the only one who gets short breaks to post on the forum.

Ovamboland:
But i believe i'll be blessed if you can pull up verses that contradict my understanding then i can read it up in full context. You will be helping a bible student and brother

Dear brother, you often miss the point. My aim is not to assert myself or my views as the overriding authority here: this is not a "believe-me-at-gun-point" kind of argument! I have often said that my approach these days is to slow down, welcome other people's disgreement with me, discuss with them, keep it to simply what is being discussed so that we don't spin off to other matters that are not relevant here, and then open our hearts and minds to read what the texts say. We can all do these things without trying to call names at anyone or take issues out on anyone. Yes, we may tease one another and all that; but what's with all the snide remarks?

if I find something arresting and point it out, and yet my readers still maintain that they are not convinced, that is okay and we can all be happy in the love of our Saviour as we keep learning. I said very long ago last year that I was not commissioned to shoot anybody who does not believe in tithing. That being so, what is wrong with our believing in tithes - especially when we're not forcing anyone to bend their necks to the LAW?

Blessings.