₦airaland Forum

@anonimi,

Edited.

anonimi:
I have noted your answer to my question above. You may wish to define what you pay as tithe.

Lol, anonimi. .  let me help you here: I would not tell you precisely how much in a specific figure by percentage (%) I tithe.

I have my reasons for declining at this moment to tell you a specific figure. Here they are:

(1) I am a passionate and unrepentant opposer of legalism in the Christian testimony. It has come to my notice that while opposers of tithes are asking too many questions, they will most likely not answer questions themselves. There are some questions I have asked, no opposer to tithe has been able to give me a precise and honest answer thereto - but while we note the genial atmosphere to discussing issues, it makes me wonder how this restlessness too often shows up in the books written by non-tithers.

(2) Secondly, while they will zero-in on what tithers give and how many percentages it amounts to, these same opposers will never tell you publicly what they themselves will give in their own churches. They will tersely remark: "I just give - it doesn't matter - it is by grace - it is tied t a need", etc.

(3) Following (1) above, it makes sense that we look at the Word and help ourslves to stick to what it teaches. Not at any time in either the OT or NT did God ever once condemn tithes. As such, in the NT, the principle of my tithing is based on what God says:

       ●  to set something aside in proportion to how I have been blessed
           (1 Cor. 16:2, AMP)

       ●  to give as I have purposed in my own heart (2 Cor. 9:7)

       ●  there upon, I am not to let a divine transaction of this nature to be
           publicly sounded like a trumpet - it fosters pride (cf. Matt. 6:1-3); in other
           words, it is a discreet transaction between each believer and God.

I wonder why non-tithers would make so much noise about how much tithers give in their churches, and yet tithers are not asking non-tithers to account for how much is their "just give" transactions.

anonimi:
I will wait for the response of sleekymag and JJ before I give a concise and specific reply.

I think you could give your response now - seeing that among those that tithe, two summary answers have been proffered.

Cheers.

@topic

To tithe or not to tithe? very easy! Did Jesus tithe?

carmelily:
@topic

To tithe or not to tithe? very easy! Did Jesus tithe?

Very easy: did Jesus condemn tithes?

sleekymag:
@ anonimi,

Based on the above, personally i tithe 10% of my earnings apart from a few other things, that i've developed for myself. It's all a matter of faith contacted from the word.

I have also noted your unambiguous response to my question. Thanks.
I hope JJ will show up soon enough.

pilgrim.1:
@anonimi,

Lol, anonimi. .  let me help you here: I would not tell you precisely how much in a specific figure by percentage (%) I tithe.

In short you do not pay a tenth (10%) of your earings to your church as tithe, right?
Or maybe you do pay a tenth?

anonimi:
In short you do not pay a tenth (10%) of your earings to your church as tithe, right?
Or maybe you do pay a tenth?

I give a tithe - but it is not 10%. Does that help?

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim
While you are at it kindly remember to explain the difference between offerings and the tithes you pay.

Lol, @Kunle. . I did not ignore your question/request. Will deal pronto afterwards.

pilgrim.1:
I give a tithe - but it is not 10%. Does that help?

You do not give a tenth (10%) of your earnings so it cannot be tithe.
How about that?

I need really need help in programming am a fresher in line and am finding it difficuit and also tired of reading pls can anyone put me thru and will be very gratefull

Na the ting wey you gih we Papa,
Na yin tis we dey bring am so,

Papa yeeeeeeh,

Yeeeeep, Papa owh,
Make you take am wit all ya heart.  

anonimi:
You do not give a tenth (10%) of your earnings so it cannot be tithe.
How about that?

Why can it not be tithe - just because you do not see 10% as the exact figure?

I guess then that what Russell E. Kelly Ph.D and his folks describe as 23.3% and 40% are not tithe then? If they are, where do you stand in these matters?

You could give us your answers now regardless of whether JJYOU comes on board now or later.

calebreal:
I need really need help in programming am a fresher in line and am finding it difficuit and also tired of reading please can anyone put me through and will be very gratefull

Could guys at the Programming section be of more help?

pilgrim.1:
Why cannot it not be tithe - just because you do not see 10% as the exact figure?

I guess then that what Russell E. Kelly Ph.D and his folks describe as 23.3% and 40% are not tithe then? If they are, where do you stand in these matters?

You could give us your answers now regardless of whether JJYOU comes on board now or later.

I am surprised that a Bible scholar as erudite as yourself and who claims to be persuaded to tithe not by law but by Abraham-Melchizedec text will post what you just posted above.
Maybe you want to re-read and then edit.
Hopefully by then JJ would have responded to my question unambiguously as well.

LOL

How can a Tithe be more than 10%

anonimi:
I am surprised that a Bible scholar as erudite as yourself

Many thanks for the accolades - they are unnecessary here.

anonimi:
and who claims to be persuaded to tithe not by law but by Abraham-Melchizedec text will post what you just posted above.

Please point out what your grouse with my statements are - then we can take it from there.

anonimi:
Maybe you want to re-read and then edit.

They stand as is, until then.

anonimi:
Hopefully by then JJ would have responded to my question unambiguously as well.

Okay, please yourself as and whenever.

Cheers.

Gamine:
How can a Tithe be more than 10%

Please ask the holders of Ph.Ds who have been hooting against tithes and calculated it to 40%. I am waiting for them to come on board and tell us where to begin to bleach their sanctimony.

Gamine:
LOL

How can a Tithe be more than 10%

Does it really matter what percentage the tithes are?

If I remember correctly, there is a parable in the NT in which Jesus depicts a picture of a flashy and flamboyant giver as oppose to a poor humble and meek giver whose offerings to god appear to have been better received by god.

Raises another question - Would god refund offering that were not made with the purest of hearts?

Yet another - Supposing you are a billionaire (in dollars, say).  Would you truely give 10% of your wealth as a tithe in your local church?

pilgrim.1:
Please ask the holders of Ph.Ds who have been hooting against tithes and calculated it to 40%.

And your point is- it cannot be more than 10%?
Or can it be more than 10% as per the authors you recently quoted?

Quote from: anonimi on Today at 12:57:45 PM
and who claims to be persuaded to tithe not by law but by Abraham-Melchizedec text will post what you just posted above.

Please point out what your grouse with my statements are - then we can take it from there.

Me i no dey get grouse oh, my dear sister in the Lord! If you dey look for am, abeg make you go front small maybe you go fit find am for dia.
I was only reiterating what all your posts has been about so that you may re-affirm them or not. You may still wish to do so or we accept your opinion as currently summed up.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
And your point is- it cannot be more than 10%?
Or can it be more than 10% as per the authors you recently quoted?

I don't think you have been following my position since we started discussing this issue. Perhaps you got disenchanted ("perhaps", I said) and just simply stopped reading - which is okay, if that is the case. But let me bring some few things to your attention once again after repeating myself endlessly:

1. Let it be on record: pilgrim.1 is NOT the one quoting such authors who have been antagonistic to tithes. In my several repostes, I referred to such authors only when replying to other posts which have quoted such authors - as in these two examples: here and here.

2. To assume that I was the one quoting those authors is to confuse me for someone else and belie my position with a most queer canard. I'm not the one quoting them, and I have demonstrated that I don't agree with their excuses for opposing tithes - some of which I have pointed out already in recent times (here and here).

3. If at all I had been making the mistake of quoting those authors to buttress any view about my position, I would have been contradicting myself most severely - because it would mean that I was making their own mistake and decorating my position with their fancies. However, there are a few reasons why my position differs from theirs:

        ● their premise is the Levitical priesthood; whereas -
           my premise is the priesthood of Melchizedek

        ● they see the Melchizedek case as a pagan sacandal;
           whereas, I see it as a matter of faith

        ● they start out lashing against tithes from the Law;
           whereas, I start outside the Law every single time

        ● all their fiery disdain against tithes are based on Judaism;
           whereas, I don't justify tithes on Jewish rites;

        ● they only see the old covenant of the Levitical order;
           whereas, I look at the mystery of the new covenant

        ● while they legislate for God to condemn tithes;
           I challenge them to show where God ever once condemned tithes
           (remarkable that they have never answered that question!)

        ● they often equate tithes to such issues as "circumcision";
           whereas, I have never once made that equation
           or confused one for the other!

        ● they often are too quick to condemn others who tithe;
           whereas, I have consistently called for reason and balance

        ● often, they try to make tithes look like a matter of justification and salvation;
           whereas, I have never done so either from the OT or NT!

Dear anonimi, when you engage pilgrim.1 in very intricate matters like this, please tread softly - just an advice. Once early in my Christian life, I also condemned tithes, ridiculed it, and gave several excuses why they could not be for the Christian. However, a change of heart came upon me and I know where I'm coming from, where I have been, how deeply these matters have been researched, and I know who I am today in Christ. There is NOTHING that any opposer of tithe is going to say today that I have not read, heard, seen, perused, queried, or synthesiszed in a digestible form to know where they stand.

If I wanted to, I could serve you 211 (that's not a typo - it's 211) more points (a total of 220 points) where I differ radically from the arguments of antagonists on this matter. I could show you another 45 points of the bitter things they have said against Christ, against tithers and even contrary to God Himself. I don't want to scare any Christian believer, that is why I am trying to be sensible here and not post such matters (other than the one where Yomisays derived his argument from the opposer that condemned tithers to Hell using Galatians 5:4).

Lol, I'm not trying to bluff here. No. The point is that (while I'm not pointing this at you), pilgrim.1 is not a softball on anybody's tuff who can be so bitterly driven with their legalistic sanctimony - not even when they claim a Ph.D with a "Christian" badge.

anonimi:
Me i no dey get grouse oh, my dear sister in the Lord! If you dey look for am, abeg make you go front small maybe you go fit find am for dia.

Hehe, brotherly. . just helep me point out wetin you wan make I edit - fiam! I go comply pronto.

anonimi:
I was only reiterating what all your posts has been about so that you may re-affirm them or not. You may still wish to do so or we accept your opinion as currently summed up.

I'm not a rigid discussant - where you have anything to convince me on the questions I have asked, it would be such a delight. O ka ré!

"WHO ARE THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES OF TODAY?
BEFORE U CATEGORISE THEM WRONGFULLY, KNOW THEY WERE THE "RELIGIOUS" PPLE OF THAT TIME,
PEACE

pilgrim.1,

Your writings is basically that you are still saying your tithe is not a tenth (10%)  of your income, isn't it whether na legalistically speaking abi na faithfully speaking?

pilgrim.1:
@anonimi,

Dear anonimi, when you engage pilgrim.1 in very intricate matters like this, please tread softly - just an advice. Once early in my Christian life, I also condemned tithes, ridiculed it, and gave several excuses why they could not be for the Christian. However, a change of heart came upon me and I know where I'm coming from, where I have been, how deeply these matters have been researched, and I know who I am today in Christ. There is NOTHING that any opposer of tithe is going to say today that I have not read, heard, seen, perused, queried, or synthesiszed in a digestible form to know where they stand.

If I wanted to, I could serve you 211 (that's not a typo - it's 211) more points (a total of 220 points) where I differ radically from the arguments of antagonists on this matter. I could show you another 45 points of the bitter things they have said against Christ, against tithers and even contrary to God Himself. I don't want to scare any Christian believer, that is why I am trying to be sensible here and not post such matters (other than the one where Yomisays derived his argument from the opposer that condemned tithers to Hell using Galatians 5:4).

Lol, I'm not trying to bluff here. No. The point is that (while I'm not pointing this at you), pilgrim.1 is not a softball on anybody's tuff who can be so bitterly driven with their legalistic sanctimony - not even when they claim a Ph.D with a "Christian" badge.

If u no wan scare persin na wetin be all dis tori wey you dey yarn for above dia
Make you try more, more abeg.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Your writings is basically that you are still saying your tithe is not a tenth (10%)  of your income, isn't it whether na legalistically speaking abi na faithfully speaking?

Answer and reminder:[list][list]

pilgrim.1:
I give a tithe - but it is not 10%. Does that help?

[/list][/list]

Was that not clear enough when I stated it?

anonimi:
If u no wan scare persin na wetin be all this tori wey you dey yarn for above dia
Make you try more, more abeg.

Lol, u no need to shake - I just don't like repeating mysef endlessly - especially when someone is making the mistake of misrepresenting my position.

pilgrim.1:
@anonimi,

Answer and reminder:[list][list][/list][/list]

Was that not clear enough when I stated it?

Lol, u no need to shake - I just don't like repeating mysef endlessly - especially when someone is making the mistake of misrepresenting my position.

Your answer was very clear, maybe even too clear and don't worry I did not make any mistake of misrepresenting your position.
I was only pointing out the apparent discord in your tithe justification, to wit:

While you say it is not a tenth (10%) of earnings, you still said your persuasion is not based on the law but on Abraham's giving of a tenth (10%) of his war booty to Melchizedec.

I have given you the opportunity throughout today to see the glaring contortion that resonates throughout all your submissions on this thread but you seem not to be able to get it. Hopefully you may get it now.

@ Pilgrim 1,

Acts 15:1-29 talks about the issue of the Mosaic Law being brought into the new covenant. The proponents of the Law wanted circumscion and obedience to the Law of Moses to be part of the new covenant especially on the Gentiles ( you and I). This was the first ecumenical council,and Peter dealt with the issue. He recognised that even they themselves, the Jews ,could not keep the Law,also that God's love had extended to the Gentiles and He didn't require us to keep the Law. Everything under the Mosaic Law has been nailed to the cross. If we decide on our own to tithe, we should then decide to obey other parts of the Law like (a) not going into the congregation of the children of God while in one's period (b) not eating seafood without scales (c) not wearing clothing of mixed materials (d) all the daily ,sin and all-what-nought offerings should continue amongst a host of others. Why keep a part of the Law and not the rest?

The word 'TITHE' has a catholic meaning and it is 'a tenth'. Any variance to this definition is a personal opinion and should be labelled as such. If one pays 11% it is no longer called 'tithe' and it should be clearly stated as 11%.
Since u pay tithes (though u said not necessarily 10%), Pilgrim , it would be nice if you said that you do so based on your Personal Opinions not under the new covenant of Jesus because this new covenant that we are under does not obligate us to do so. Law and grace do not go hand-in-hand. What we have now is giving from a cheerful heart , not out of compulsion. Whatever is being given does not necessarily have to be money, it can be time,clothes food etc, but tithes was specifically agricultural products. No variance in meaning.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Your answer was very clear, maybe even too clear and don't worry I did not make any mistake of misrepresenting your position.
I was only pointing out the apparent discord in your tithe justification, to wit:

While you say it is not a tenth (10%) of earnings, you still said your persuasion is not based on the law but on Abraham's giving of a tenth (10%) of his war booty to Melchizedec.

I have given you the opportunity throughout today to see the glaring contortion that resonates throughout all your submissions on this thread but you seem not to be able to get it. Hopefully you may get it now.

Okey-dokes! I even thought you had a huge problem that was worrying you for which I could edit. Kai! E no good to carry legalism for mind O!

Let me help you brother. Throughout from the very onset, I have maintained two things in this regard:

(a) While others may see tithe as only 10% and nothing more or less than that, I have maintained that IMO tithe is not only 10% and the figures vary in Scripture. Even those who favour tithes have gracefully shared with me that tithe is nothing other than 10%, and I acknowledged their persuasions on that note - afterall, there has been a consistency that this issue in our lives is not a compulsion where my own persuasions should be the standard and only prescription for anyone else. To this end, I have demonstrated the case of 1% (from Nehemiah 10:38); a 20% added to the tithe that was to be redeemed; as well noted that even among opposers to tithe, the figures have been anywhere from 10% to 23.3% to even 40%.

       Question. Look at the various figures below:

           . . . 1%,

           . . . 10%,

           . . . 12%  (ie., a fifth added to tithes that are redeemable, Lev. 27:30-31)

           . . . 23.3%,

           . . . 40%

       Now, which one of all those figures is properly called tithes?

If you choose only 10%, what do you then call the other figures, dear anonimi? I shall wait for your answer, and then give you some other figures straight from Scripture which your own adulators have all acknowledged and yet call those various figures TITHES!


(b) Following the above, I still maintain that tithes are not only a matter of one's income - as in the case of Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek, it is open to various interpretations which some have declined as saying it was income to the patriarch. No worries; but even so, while pointing out that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, I also noted that it was not based on a command or rigid law to do so. There was no legislation asking the patriarch to dole out exactly 10% of everything in precise slice or exactitude of figures. This is why I started early to warn that those who set their minds on a rigid figure will run into problems sooner than later.


(c) I still maintain my position that tithes should not be a matter of rigid figures, but of divine principles. If you have been careful to follow my inputs on this, you certainly would not have missed where I clearly have repeatedly stated that it was by "principle" and not by exactitudes of calculations. Some may decide to give more or less instead of exactly 10% - others may feel led to give in that same manner, but are too scared to call it "tithes" (preferring other terms not found in the NT). I don't have a problem with all those - the only issue for such arguments is that those who stay on a rigid command in everything will miss the essential feature of what tithes are pointing to (which is what I was waiting all along to demonstrate, though I mentioned it earlier).

Bottomline is that -
   ● I give my tithes (which is not 10%),
   ● following the principle of Abraham's faith,
   ● recognizing the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek
   ● without fear, cajoling, manipulation, or inveigling,
   ● not to fulfill any part of Judaism
   ● not seeking to be more righteous thereby
   ● and have been truly blessed extra-ordinarily in doing so.

I'm sorry to note that my position somewhat distressed or confused you all the more - I never intended it so to be. However, it is not an exactitude of figures in percentages that is paramount in tithes - rather, it is what tithes essentially mean that Scripture presents before us that matters more. problem is that people have taken the secondary matters and made them the primary matters - and that is why they cannot see what they are confusing.

If there are fresh questions, I would be very glad to attend them.

Many blessings.

@MALAMA,

Thank you again for your simple outlines. I hope that my reposte would be as effective as you would anticipate. Please note also the words I highlighted in quoting yours - just so you can see where I stand on these matters.

MALAMA:
@ Pilgrim 1,

Acts 15:1-29 talks about the issue of the Mosaic Law being brought into the new covenant. The proponents of the Law wanted circumscion and obedience to the Law of Moses to be part of the new covenant especially on the Gentiles ( you and I). This was the first ecumenical council,and Peter dealt with the issue. He recognised that even they themselves, the Jews ,could not keep the Law,also that God's love had extended to the Gentiles and He didn't require us to keep the Law. Everything under the Mosaic Law has been nailed to the cross. If we decide on our own to tithe, we should then decide to obey other parts of the Law like (a) not going into the congregation of the children of God while in one's period (b) not eating seafood without scales (c) not wearing clothing of mixed materials (d) all the daily ,sin and all-what-nought offerings should continue amongst a host of others. Why keep a part of the Law and not the rest?

Lol, I especially like the last question which I have highlighted thus:
"Why keep a part of the Law and not the rest?"

My simple answer is another question:

"WHERE have I ever stated that my tithing is based on the Law?"

The moment you find that answer, that is when you will come to see what exactly I have been saying. For emphasis sake, let me state it yet again:

● my persuasions to tithe are not based on the Levitical rites and ceremonies

● my persuasions to tithe are not based on the Law of Moses

● my persuasions to tithe are not predicated on fulfilling any part of Judaism

● my persuasions to tithe are not because of the LAW

● people, please, please and please, look away from the Levitical priesthood
if you want to talk about tithing as a Christian!

You see the mistake many people make - and I have lost count of how many times I have repeated this matter so often that my fingers are aching in that regard. Recently, I had to repeat myself again about that matter yet again, where I outlined the mistake that so many people make. Let me repeat them once again:

______________________________________________________________

However, there are a few reasons why my position differs from theirs:

[size=14pt] ● their premise is the Levitical priesthood; whereas -
my premise is the priesthood of Melchizedek[/size]

● they see the Melchizedek case as a pagan sacandal;
whereas, I see it as a matter of faith

[size=14pt] ● they start out lashing against tithes from the Law;
whereas, I start outside the Law every single time[/size]

● all their fiery disdain against tithes are based on Judaism;
whereas, I don't justify tithes on Jewish rites;

● they only see the old covenant of the Levitical order;
whereas, I look at the mystery of the new covenant

● while they legislate for God to condemn tithes;
I challenge them to show where God ever once condemned tithes
(remarkable that they have never answered that question!)

● they often equate tithes to such issues as "circumcision";
whereas, I have never once made that equation
or confused one for the other!

● they often are too quick to condemn others who tithe;
whereas, I have consistently called for reason and balance

● often, they try to make tithes look like a matter of justification and salvation;
whereas, I have never done so either from the OT or NT!
______________________________________________________________

In one word, when people start out from the LAW of Moses, just be sure they will confuse issues more for themselves! For those who are too assuming about the Mosaic Law and disregard it, I have said something to that effect as well - they should also be ready to drop some of the Christian doctrines which they believe in and practise in Church that were derived directly from the Law of Moses! Yes, just incase you may not have remembered, there are Christian doctrines and practices derived directly from the Law of Moses! Once you see that point, it will bring you back to very carefully study the implications of the divine principles in the Law for people under the new covenant! I was not trying ever to mix Judaism into Christianity, and I hope that this issue will now become clearer to us now.

MALAMA:
The word 'TITHE' has a catholic meaning and it is 'a tenth'. Any variance to this definition is a personal opinion and should be labelled as such. If one pays 11% it is no longer called 'tithe' and it should be clearly stated as 11%.

My dear, I am sorry to disappoint you deeply. Refer to just the case of Leviticus 27:30-31 --

           "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land,
            or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD.

            And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes,
            he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof"

    Now, a casual mental maths quickly tells us that "fifth part" is 20%, not so? Yes, it is.

    Then you add that 20% to the tithes (10%), does that still remain as 10%? No, it does not!

    Now, if a man takes the value of 20% added to 10% and present it to the priest back then,
    what shall he say to the priest? I guess you are asking him to say, "Uhm, I don't know what
    happened, but here is my 12% anyways!!" Since 12% is no longer 10%, are you
    not clearly advocating that such a person should indeed not call his tithes by that term -
    TITHES?

You see, before you make this assumption, go through Scripture carefully. Even if I don't rest my case for tithing upon the Law, you are absolutely wrong to advocate that Leviticus 27:31 is no longer a tithe - whereas, it IS called a tithe even though a fifth part (20%) is added to it to bring his tithes above 10%! When we read Encyclopedias and Bible Dictionaries, let us understand something - they are good; but they can never take the place of the Word of God.

MALAMA:
Since u pay tithes (though u said not necessarily 10%), Pilgrim , it would be nice if you said that you do so based on your Personal Opinions not under the new covenant of Jesus because this new covenant that we are under does not obligate us to do so.

Actually, holding on to only a narrow view of the meaning of tithes is your personal opinion and not what the Word teaches. I have not sought to make my persuasions the satndard for anyone - and if a man gives less than 10% or more than 23.3%, to God be all the glory - they do so on their own inner convictions. Many people are too scared to call it "TITHES", because they (probably) have been exposed to the ridicule of clever minds who argue endlessly against tithes and call it every other name under the sun. As for me, I fear nothing in this matter, and as far as the Bible teaches what I have shared above, it is not my worry whatever anyone else thinks.

MALAMA:
Law and grace do not go hand-in-hand. What we have now is giving from a cheerful heart ,not out of compulsion.

This is where you make another BIG mistake. Go back to the OT and see that when the commandment was given to take tithes, everyone came and obeyed with a CHEERFUL heart. So what is the difference now between a cheerful heart in the OT and a cheerful heart in the NT? Besides, my position through has been consistently saying that it is not by compulsion - and let me remind you to the fact once again:
                 ____________________________________________________________

                  'I don't think you have noticed how many people ackowledge that tithes
                  have nothing to do with the idea of ~

                  DEMAND,
                            COERSION,
                            COMPULSION,
                            FORCE,
                            CAJOLING,
                            MANIPULATION,
                            INDOCTRINATION,

                            . . . or any other ONOMATOMANIA!!
                 ____________________________________________________________

                 I said it since and repeated it several times. . .

                (1) here

                (2) and again

                (3) and here!


My dear MALAMA, "Grace" did not originate from the NT - back in the OT we find several men of God who knew and enjoyed the grace of God, from Noah (Genesis 6:8), to Lot (Gen. 19:19), to Moses (Exo. 33:12 & 17) and through to the remnant of the captivity of Israel (Ezra 9:8). The problem with us is that we have allowed the world to define Christianity for us, and we are making the huge mistake of perpetuating their erratum.

MALAMA:
Whatever is being given does not necessarily have to be money, it can be time,clothes food etc, but tithes was specifically agricultural products. No variance in meaning.

I will come back after allowing you guys check your thoughts about this traditional thinking. In all honesty, if you give "offerings" in church, have you given food and clothes and called that "offering"? Talk is cheap - we can sit behind our houses and argue so much about this matter - and for all that, it happens many times that we are unable to translate our arguments to reality! I acknowledge the fact that people smetime have "fine" points - but of what use is it arguing so much about what we have no answers to, and then make a few hurried summaries which are hardly practical in the face of reality?

Shalom.

Hi Pilgrim.1,

I trust all is well with you and with yours.

I'd like to discuss this further with you, but not in a manner that will become tedious. I'd like to put some questions to you, in some ways away from a purely doctrinal basis, more towards the practicality of giving.

I must say, although you say your giving is not predicated on the law, your recourse to it in establishing your position is such that it may as well be. Neither is it properly established in my mind, by resort to shakey "inferences" from the NT, opaque "principles" from the OT and some as yet unclarified "mystery",, from I'm not exactly sure where?

There are two dispensations clearly outlined in scripture "The Law of Moses" and the "The Grace & Truth of The Lord Jesus" (John 1:17). If you read or have been shown a third, surely it should be clear from scripture and not too difficult for you to show?

If the basis is on the Melchizedekal, surely there must be inferences to be drawn from Melchizedek and not just the one action of Abraham, for which there are other understandings, which again - to my mind - are far superior to any you have postulated.

If you are a 23% taxpayer and the deadline for tax returns is December 31st, with a a 1% penalty for every day that you are late and you subsequently end up paying 28% because you are 5 days late, does that make you a taxpayer at the rate of 28%? There's no way one of your obvious intelluct and repeatedly demonstrated scholarship should be making that kind of arguement.

Again, if one pays two yearly tithes of 10% and a three yearly one of 10% averaging approximately 23%, would you sincerely argue that on that basis a tithe is therefore 23%?

Having said that I'd to discuss further, hopefully by way of some concise answers in return for some brief answers. Of course I am more than willing to reciprocate. If you are amenable please advise by return, otherwise, I am happy to just follow.

God bless.
TV

Hi TV01,

Many thanks for your keen reposte, and I shall try to be as concise.

TV01:
I'd like to discuss this further with you, but not in a manner that will become tedious. I'd like to put some questions to you, in some ways away from a purely doctrinal basis, more towards the practicality of giving.

Beautiful, and I've long awaited this!

TV01:
I must say, although you say your giving is not predicated on the law, your recourse to it in establishing your position is such that it may as well be. Neither is it properly established in my mind, by resort to shakey "inferences" from the NT, opaque "principles" from the OT and some as yet unclarified "mystery",, from I'm not exactly sure where?

The principle is easy to grasp, and I already said:
"There is a difference between living by the Old Covenant Law (OCL)
and learning from the Old Testament Scriptures (OTS)." (stated here)

One could learn from the Old Testament without living by the Law of Moses (Rom. 15:4).

TV01:
There are two dispensations clearly outlined in scripture "The Law of Moses" and the "The Grace & Truth of The Lord Jesus" (John 1:17). If you read or have been shown a third, surely it should be clear from scripture and not too difficult for you to show?

Actually, I see more than two dispensations:

● pre-Mosaic

● Mosaic

● post-Mosaic

(a) Pre-Mosaic speaks to us about the dispensations before the emergence of Israel as a nation, and covers such periods as under Noah, then Abraham, before Moses.

(b) Mosaic dispensation points to Judaism - something we all know Abraham was not a part of.

(c) Post-Mosaic ushers us to the present where the grace of God in Christ Jesus is offered to all the world - Jews and Gentiles.

What John 1:17 points out does not deny the dispensations before the Law, nor does it make the Mosaic Law override those that preceded it.

TV01:
If the basis is on the Melchizedekal, surely there must be inferences to be drawn from Melchizedek and not just the one action of Abraham, for which there are other understandings, which again - to my mind - are far superior to any you have postulated.

It would be a delight to see those superior postulations - we are all learning.

TV01:
If you are a 23% taxpayer and the deadline for tax returns is December 31st, with a a 1% penalty for every day that you are late and you subsequently end up paying 28% because you are 5 days late, does that make you a taxpayer at the rate of 28%? There's no way one of your obvious intelluct and repeatedly demonstrated scholarship should be making that kind of arguement.

When and if one ends up paying a tax of 28% by their own circumstances, what they pay is no less called Tax. It doesn't mean that they would pay 28% every year from thence on - and if your worry here is in respect of Leviticus 27:30-31 that I pointed out, please check it again and see that it is a conditional case - with the "IF" (And if a man. . ).

TV01:
Again, if one pays two yearly tithes of 10% and a three yearly one of 10% averaging approximately 23%, would you sincerely argue that on that basis a tithe is therefore 23%?

I think you're making a terrible mistake here. Rather than assume that was my premise, please see that I was merely responding by quoting the figures as given by tithe-opposers. If I made reference to a 40% tithe, it does not make me the same person as Russell Earl Kelly - for I would only be pointing out what those people have calculated by their own understanding to arrive at such a figure. If you want to discuss the various tithes under the Levitical system, I would most gladly join you and show you every exactitude of calculation we find there - perhaps then, you will come round seeing that tithes are not always a matter of 10% only.

TV01:
Having said that I'd to discuss further, hopefully by way of some concise answers in return for some brief answers. Of course I am more than willing to reciprocate. If you are amenable please advise by return, otherwise, I am happy to just follow.

Always willing to enage as ever - the fruit to be enjoyed both ways.

Many blessings.

Pilgrim,

you base your tithing on the Abraham-Melchizedek relationship,right? There really isnt any big deal,so to say on Abraham's tithe because,tithing was an already recognised practice during his time adopted by the nations then (whether pagan or not); Abraham was only following the customs and practices of the people when he tithed (let us remember here that it was war booty,not personal possessions) to Melchizedek because he had to pass through Mel's land and Mel was a king (likened to the Yoruba proverb which says one shouldn't pass through the land without saying hello to the oba-with gifts); the tithing was not prompted by a divine injunction from the Lord and faith was not involved in this tithing.

The new covenant giving has no boundaries,whether it is 100% or 1%,it should be done with a willing and cheerful heart not out of obeying a law.The old covenant giving/tithing was done in accordance/obedience to the Law and by compulsion.

Since your tithing is not based on the levitical priesthood or the jewish rites , then dont make it seem as if your tithing has a basis in the new covenant because it doesn't.

You mentioned 'mystery of the new covenant'. Has the mystery been revealed, or is it still hidden? Do expantiate please.

You are right here- God didn't condemn tithing, He also didnt condemn my firstfruit offering, my atonement offering, my not eating unclean animals, my not going for a church service in my menstrual period, my not planting two types of seed on a single plot of land and a host of others. Then why did Jesus come in the first place if we are to go on with all these practices Are we to tell Him that His Son came in vain?

All those references you brought for 'grace' have no bearing with the grace of Christ that I was referring to. The grace of Christ brings us into liberty which is what the Law had failed to do.

I agree that dictionaries and encyclopediae should not replace the bible, but how can u understand the bible which was written in another language without these? The English dictionary has defined 'TITHE' as a tenth part. It did not change the meaning of the word in the original Hebrew or Aramaic,it just conveyed the meaning to us English-speakers. When someone redeems his tithes and adds a fifth part to it (notice that 'a fifth part' did not have a special name like a tenth part which is 'tithe') it is no longer called a 'tithe'. The priest who accepts this ' redeemed tithe' knows what percentage it is exactly and the man who makes this offering does not just call it as 'tithe' , he qualifies the offering he is making so that he priest knows it is no longer ten percent ( the man says to the priest 'here is a fifth part which I have added to my tithe according to the Law of Moses').

In my church and a few I've been to, when food and clothes are being given in recognition of a need, it is called 'love offering'.

@MALAMA,

Many thanks again for your reply of late. Sad though that I would have to once again repeat myself on many issues; and happy the day when we can move forward without my having to be endlessly repetitive.

MALAMA:
you base your tithing on the Abraham-Melchizedek relationship,right?

Wrong! Again, this is what I said: "my premise is the priesthood of Melchizedek".

MALAMA:
There really isnt any big deal,so to say on Abraham's tithe because,tithing was an already recognised practice during his time adopted by the nations then (whether pagan or not); Abraham was only following the customs and practices of the people when he tithed (let us remember here that it was war booty,not personal possessions) to Melchizedek because he had to pass through Mel's land and Mel was a king (likened to the Yoruba proverb which says one shouldn't pass through the land without saying hello to the oba-with gifts); the tithing was not prompted by a divine injunction from the Lord and faith was not involved in this tithing.

I deeply appreciate your input, but dear sister. . . take am easy and go back and check your ideas before the Word. The problem is that you trailed off, and such reasoning does not draw my interest. Let me tell you why:

1. How you arrive at the idea that Abraham was passing through Mel's land is beyond me; for that is simply opposite to what we find in the Bible. The Bible says that it was Melchizedek who came forth to meet Abraham, and not the other way round (see Genesis 14:18 and Hebrews 7:1).

2. Notice that there was another king that went out to meet Abraham also - the king of Sodom (Gen. 14:17). If Abraham was copying a pagan rite from the nations around him, he would definitely have been tithing to those pagan kings as well long before Melchizedek met him; for those pagan nations had their own system of worship and priests, their own pagan rites, ceremonies, and customs.

3. If it was a matter of "passing through" a king's land that necessitated giving tithes, Abraham surely passed through such several lands, including Sichem (Gen. 12:6), Egypt (Gen. 12:10), and Canaan (Gen. 13:12). Why did Abraham not tithe to those pagan kings? Afterall, we know that they had their own pagan rites and priests as well? If Abraham was emuliating anything from the pagans around him back then, he surely would have tithed to their priests - but is there any such?

4. Here is a hint that we all know: the name Melchizedek king of S[/b]ale[b]m speaks to us some very significant things:

       ● king of righteousness

       ● king of peace

By contrast, Sodom means "scotching" - and even with their pagan rites and ceremonies with all their systems of pagan worship, Abraham did not once seek to tithe to those pagan priests. This is why I detest the excuse that many people make here, because right there in Scripture they cannot even see that Abraham was not imitating the rites of the pagans! Not once! This lazy excuse of "pagan-this-and-pagan-that" is shameful even for Christians who call themselves the children of Abraham! We make these excuses and then come back to use the same thing to argue that Abraham was depicting the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek - forgeting that the Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek! As long as we let the world define our faith for us, we shall continue to be as blind as they are!

Let me share a bit more on this point. The devil is not after our goods, my dear - he is ragingly seeking our souls! The king of "scotching" (Sodom) did not ask for goods - nevermind that he was a pagan king! But what did he ask for? "Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself." This is instructive to us all - and a solemn thought: while we have been arguing back and forth about "goods" in tithing, the devil is busy keeping people from seeing the message of that event and making nonsense of our tithes - why? because he is seeking the souls of men!

Today, as Christians some of us disdain tithes, excuse it under the spell that it was a pagan rite, condemn it where God never once did so, . . some even go as far as calling the case of Melchizedek a 'scandal' . . and what do you think the king of 'scotching' is doing as we condemn this mystery? Please think carefully - and we shall come back to share more on that.

5. To say that faith was not involved in Abraham's case in this instance is to miss everything else! Can you please share with us how else Abraham could have been prompted to tithe to Melchizedek on that one occasion? What did Abraham see that he could offer tithes to Melchizedek and not to the king of Sodom - since both kings came forth to meet him? It was even the king of Sodom that met Abraham before Melchizedek, and yet Abraham did not entertain anything from the king of Sodom - for the person you fellowship with (symbol of bread and wine) speaks about the condition of the heart.

So, as long as any Christian continues to make this excuse of a lie from the devil about equating Abraham's tithes with pagan rites, they will have every excuse to miss the message of that passage! As Christians, dear sis, I urge us to drop this excuse pronto - too long have we given ourselves to such a mishap (and that is why you shoulod carefully review your idea that Abraham was "passing through" as if he met Melchizedek instead of the other way round).

MALAMA:
The new covenant giving has no boundaries,whether it is 100% or 1%,it should be done with a willing and cheerful heart not out of obeying a law.The old covenant giving/tithing was done in accordance/obedience to the Law and by compulsion.

I keep telling you: the people under the old covenant also gave with willing hearts and cheerful spirits - even under the Law: please go and check. If "willing and cheerful hearts" is the epitome of our giving, there's not much a difference between that and how it was done in the OT! So, this argument is already retired, nothing different in a cheerful heart - they applied both to the OT and NT.

However, like I always said, talk is cheap! How many people who reject tithes are able to give above 10%? Let's say as Christians, we want to give more than those under the Law, not so? Let's be real, people: how many times have you endeavoured to give just 11% of your income for 6 months? Please, before you hoot next time for 100%, be sure that you know by experience what you're saying! Many people opposed to tithing often give this weak excuse - and if you ask them to give just 11% for a cause for God's work, they are the ones to first grumble and out the door!

MALAMA, we should learn not to follow the example of hypocrites. "WE", I said - because the tendency sometimes is to make so much against tithes, but become so lazy to talk about a 100% that we never dream of giving for one minute! Why then do we make so much noise against just 1 out of 10 that God gives us? is there something churcning in our hearts that we clutch at and fight so much against because we feel threatened unduely?

As someone has said - let's learn to travel light. I raised my hand to God that I will never let money or possessions have me. . NEVER! I trust you have also made that commitment at one time or the other. If so, let's challenge ourselves for only two months to give 15% instead of 10%; then our talk about 100% will be more meaningful!

MALAMA:
Since your tithing is not based on the levitical priesthood or the jewish rites , then don't make it seem as if your tithing has a basis in the new covenant because it doesn't.

Sorry, it does - if you can't see it, no worries.

MALAMA:
You mentioned 'mystery of the new covenant'. Has the mystery been revealed, or is it still hidden? Do expantiate please.

The mystery is there for us all to see - but we have deliberately clouded our vision with the lies of men who make so many excuses and curse their brethren to Hell because of tithing! The moment we have a change of heart, we shall also see it.

MALAMA:
You are right here- God didn't condemn tithing, He also didnt condemn my firstfruit offering, my atonement offering, my not eating unclean animals, my not going for a church service in my menstrual period, my not planting two types of seed on a single plot of land and a host of others. Then why did Jesus come in the first place if we are to go on with all these practices Are we to tell Him that His Son came in vain?

MALAMA, please clam down! There is a difference in the way you're arguing and what Scripture says. If you want to argue the Law, let me know - and the first lesson you have to learn is that YOU were NEVER given that Law at any time - because you were never a JEW!! So, you cannot claim any thing from a Law that was never given to you and then begin to say that God didn't condemn "my firstfruit offering, my atonement offering", etc - you were never asked to bring these things in the first place!

So what is this idea that it was your firstfruit?!? Did God ever ask you as a Gentile to offer those things? Don't you know what the Law says?

        Romans 3:19 -
        Now we know that what things soever the law saith,
        it saith to them who are under the law:
        that every mouth may be stopped,
        and all the world may become guilty before God.

Were you anytime as a Gentile under the Law? If you were never a Jew or a Jewish proselyte, how could you be talking as if you were under the Law?

MALAMA:
All those references you brought for 'grace' have no bearing with the grace of Christ that I was referring to. The grace of Christ brings us into liberty which is what the Law had failed to do.

Are you saying that there are different types of the "grace of God"? I just want to know - because this sounds like a clever way of rejecting the truth you can't handle.

MALAMA:
I agree that dictionaries and encyclopediae should not replace the bible, but how can u understand the bible which was written in another language without these? The English dictionary has defined 'TITHE' as a tenth part. It did not change the meaning of the word in the original Hebrew or Aramaic,it just conveyed the meaning to us English-speakers. When someone redeems his tithes and adds a fifth part to it (notice that 'a fifth part' did not have a special name like a tenth part which is 'tithe') it is no longer called a 'tithe'. The priest who accepts this ' redeemed tithe' knows what percentage it is exactly and the man who makes this offering does not just call it as 'tithe' , he qualifies the offering he is making so that he priest knows it is no longer ten percent ( the man says to the priest 'here is a fifth part which I have added to my tithe according to the Law of Moses').

Please show us this assumption from Scripture, thank you.

MALAMA:
In my church and a few I've been to, when food and clothes are being given in recognition of a need, it is called 'love offering'.

I was asking you directly - not what those churches did! If you can be comfortable with what those churches did and called them, what then is the problem with just tithes? Why are we so scared of this one thing that we shall fight the world till the moon becomes red? Why are we so relaxed with this hypocrisies of naming other types of givings with terms we can't find in the NT and then disdain the one we can find?

Easy MALAMA. . it pays for us to look into Scripture and put our hearts there.

Cheers.