"Dr. Kennedy is to be highly applauded for this honest statement. He places the urgent needs of the family first, not the church. The typical tithe-teacher wrongly equates tithing with first-fruit and teaches that the tithe should go first to the church regardless of other urgent needs the family must meet. Again, he agrees more with me than with the typical tithe-teacher."



The typical tithe-teacher should encourage people to take care of their families and not only the immediate one, the extended one as well. But then again the typical tithe-teacher is either misguided or actually benefits from the payments of tithes.

Emphasis on "Typical".

garyarnold:

Tithes and [other] offerings need to be separated in Numbers 18 because the tithe went to the Levites and the [other] offerings went to the priests.  The tithes did NOT go to the Temple except for a tenth of the tithe from the Levites.

Thank you gary, i thought it was that obvious

wordtalk:

Then I went on to point out in verse 24 that the "tithes" were offered as "heave offering". Your mistake is trying to set them apart, whereas that verse says clearly - "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit". Note -

- it is "the tithes" which they offered as "heave offering"

So, I really don't get why you would be asking 'what about other types' apart from the tithes. Please consider that verse carefully again.

Then I asked: what does "heave offering" mean to you in context of that verse? I feel that as soon as we endeavour to seek out answers to that question, the difficulty will clear up.

@wordtalk, i don't have the stamina to 'dance' with you i can read, and i did read that tithe was offered as heave offering. That's not the issue and you should not try to summarize numbers 18 as you did below:

wordtalk:
True, there were various offerings (such as the heave and wave offerings in Numbers 18:8 & 11); yet, whatever they offered were in principle found in verse 21, where the Levites are in view - "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation" (KJV).

wordtalk:

Oh, if you actually did, then please share your understanding bout it. I bet you would see things differently and come to see why Paul said "[On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel.".

i thought i understood what you meant by heave offering. i am begining to think i don't. educate me please all you see in numbers 18 is tithe as heave offering, we see more than that. we see sin, guilt and cereal offerings

wordtalk:

Then there would absolutely have been no reason for Paul to be specific when he mentioned those who served at the Temple and the Altar. But because he did, you probably would need to ask why.

Now, i m asking; WHY

garyarnold:

Wordtalk totally misrepresents Dr. Kelly's position on Dr. Kennedy.

Dr. Kelly does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy, but rather say that Dr. Kennedy is in more agreement with him than most tithing teachers.

Read it for yourself at:  http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id71.html

Then you will see how wordtalk totally lied about Dr. Kelly.

Trying to force a lie into my posts? Try harder.

I already posted part of what appears on Russell's page: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.320.html#msg8875313

From Russell Kelly:

IMPORTANT: This document was requested and received by mail from myself in 2000. Dr. Kennedy’s position may have changed since then. It is my conclusion that, although he appears to teach tithing, his allowances and other statements make him in much more agreement with myself than with the majority of tithe-teachers today. Dr. Kennedy reveals more “heart” in the entire discussion than is usually revealed by others.

- then I made this comment:

What is this "agreement" that Kelly is claiming from Dr. James D. Kennedy on tithing? In other words, what can we know about Dr. Kennedy's view on tithing for Christians? This is what appears on Russell Kelly's page -

I already recognized that Kelly was "claiming agreement from" Dr. Kennedy - which is the implication in Russell's statement that Kennedy was "in much more agreement with myself".

So, please tell me: whether Russell agrees with Kennedy or rather that Kennedy agrees with Russell, or even that both of them were "in agreement", the essential thing is that Russell and Kennedy agreed on something. What then is the issue of "agreement" here? This is it -

“[size=14pt]In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.[/size]”

You may argue to the contrary that "Kelly does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy" - and that is only if you want to live in denial as you often do. Why then was Russell quoting Kennedy ("I encourage believers to tithe" and claiming that such a statement was "in much more agreement with myself"?? Has Russell been encouraging any believer in Christ to tithe while at the same time arguing against tithing for Christians?

If you look further, this is what Russell says:

Kennedy, James [p63], tithing pamphlet, Presbyterian TV preacher. Note: He takes a middle position [size=14pt]that tithes should be paid on whatever remains after all essential bills have been paid[/size].

- so, while Russell quotes Kennedy as saying that "tithes should be paid" (after tax and bills), the same Russell appears on your "list of tithing opponents". Go down to the bottom of your list and this is what you will read:

Many of the above theologians says there is NO PLACE for tithing in the Christian Church, and agree that you can't tithe Biblically now even if you wanted to

So, "you can't tithe Biblically now even if you wanted to", and yet Russell who opposes tithes is the same fellow who finds that "tithes should be paid" is in much more agreement with himself?

Your inconsistencies shine stronger by the hour.  

Zikkyy:

Tithes and [other] offerings need to be separated in Numbers 18 because the tithe went to the Levites and the [other] offerings went to the priests. The tithes did NOT go to the Temple except for a tenth of the tithe from the Levites.

Thank you gary, i thought it was that obvious

How are they separated in the statement that the tithes were offered as heave offering in Numbers 18:24?

The problem with the kind of arguments you espouse is that you simple refuse to consider what is said. If 'A' is offered as 'B' in context of a verse, does it not imply that 'A' is considered as 'B' in context of that verse? Is that any different in the statement: "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD"??

It is okay to draw a conclusion as you wish, and I can respect that - but to do so in total rejection of what you do read in the verse being discussed makes me wonder if you want to discuss in the first place. If you don't, I won't bother.

i thought i understood what you meant by heave offering. i am begining to think i don't. educate me please

You claimed you did understand, and so I ask kindly that you share your understanding with me. Since I first asked the question, I noted that after you guys have reflected on its basic meaning in that verse, we can compare notes. You jumped quickly to say you understood, so please share.

Since I personally know Dr. Kelly, and have spoken to him, I know that he does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy.  Would you like me to have Dr. Kelly comes to this blog and straighten you out?  You are either a flat out liar, OR you have a hard time understanding what others write.  You twist what others say to support your position.  Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches.  Dr. Kelly has said time and time again that there is no place in the Christian Church for tithing.  Dr. Kelly has said time and time again that those who give a tenth of their income to the church are NOT tithing.  He is very clear on his position.

Since you have also twisted what I say, and misquoted me many times on many different blogs, I tend to believe little of what you say when you "quote" what someone else says.

Wordtalk shows his total lack of understanding that you can't take one verse out of context and use it to support some so-called principle. We must take EVERYTHING the Bible says about God's commands for both tithes and offerings to see what it all means.

Wordtalk always does this crap. When he can't or doesn't want to answer your question, he goes back to some other point and won't let go. A talent that scammers use.

garyarnold:

Since I personally know Dr. Kelly, and have spoken to him, I know that he does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy.

What then does Russell Kelly mean by "agreeing" with this -

“[size=14pt]In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe[/size].”

Please simply explain what he meant in quoting that statement to the effect that it places Dr. Kennedy in agreement with himself ("make him in much more agreement with myself".

Please explain - let's start from there.

Would you like me to have Dr. Kelly comes to this blog and straighten you out?

Please do - invite Thomas Aquinas also.

Quote from Dr. Kelly regarding Dr. Kennedy:

"I agree with Kennedy that most of us should give more than 10% to either the poor or to mission work.  I only disagree when he calls it “tithing” when it is not."

Dr. Kelly did NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy's statement: “In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”

What you are showing me is that you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of what you read.

garyarnold:

Quote from Dr. Kelly regarding Dr. Kennedy:

"I agree with Kennedy that most of us should give more than 10% to either the poor or to mission work.  I only disagree when he calls it “tithing” when it is not."

Kelly's statement as quoted by Russell is this -

“[size=14pt]In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.[/size]”

Russell's agreement was expressed by the same Russell. In that quote, the word "tithe" appears, and that was what Kennedy was quoting as using, and that is what Russell claimed agreement thereto. Please do explain "I encourage believers to TITHE" so we can move on beyond your excuses.

By now, most of you should see how wordtalk is NOTHING but talk.  He continually misquotes others.  No wonder he is so confused on this topic.

This is why I find it so frustrating to debate with him.  He ignores the questions he can't or doesn't want to answer, misquotes others, twist what I say, etc. etc.  He is a sad example of a teacher.

garyarnold:

Dr. Kelly did NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy's statement:  “In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”

What you are showing me is that you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of what you read.

No problem, please try and explain two things for me - since I lack your pretentious "understanding" -

(a) "In light of these BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES" - what "Biblical principles"?

(b)  "I encourage believers to TITHE" - what was he encouraging?

Please throw your panic aside and calmly explain them.

Wordtalk continues to misquote Dr. Kelly.

Wordtalk - you can't seem to separate what Dr. Kelly is saying from what he is quoting from Dr. Kennedy. Dr. Kenndy made the statement, not Dr. Kelly, and Dr. Kelly NEVER said he agreed with it. GEEZ!

garyarnold:

By now, most of you should see how wordtalk is NOTHING but talk.  He continually misquotes others.  No wonder he is so confused on this topic.

This is why I find it so frustrating to debate with him.  He ignores the questions he can't or doesn't want to answer, misquotes others, twist what I say, etc. etc.  He is a sad example of a teacher.

Please stop acting like a kid - it betrays the desperation of a jingoist. I have not misquoted anything, so please man up or shut up if you can't explain.

garyarnold:

Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches.

Nice; which has already been observed -

wordtalk:

I already recognized that Kelly was "claiming agreement from" Dr. Kennedy - which is the implication in Russell's statement that Kennedy was "in much more agreement with myself".

So, please tell me: whether Russell agrees with Kennedy or rather that Kennedy agrees with Russell, or even that both of them were "in agreement", the essential thing is that Russell and Kennedy agreed on something. What then is the issue of "agreement" here?

Can you tell me what is the statement that Kelly was claiming an "agreement" on? Is it different from this -

[size=14pt]“In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”
[/size]??

garyarnold:

Dr. Kelly has said time and time again that there is no place in the Christian Church for tithing.

- and yet he claimed an agreement on the statement:

[size=14pt]“In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”
[/size]??


Since others lack your "understanding", why is it so difficult for you to calmly explain in the "agreement" and 'counter agreement'?

Dr, Kelly wrote: "He says “In light of these Biblical principles I encourage believers in Christ to tithe.”

Then he quotes that statement a few more times on that page, but each time he is quoting Dr. Kennedy. DR. KELLY NEVER AGREED TO THAT STATEMENT.

It's so simple. When Dr. Kelly is giving his comments, they are in italics. When the info is coming from Dr. Kennedy, it is not in italics.

garyarnold:

Dr, Kelly wrote:  "He says “In light of these Biblical principles I encourage believers in Christ to tithe.”

Yes, Russell Kelly was quoting Dr. James D. Kennedy.

Then he quotes that statement a few more times on that page, but each time he is quoting Dr. Kennedy.

Yes, yes - we know who was quoting who. Part of what Dr. Kennedy was quoted as saying in his tithing pamphlet included -

- "Churches should allow tithes to be paid in the form of work performed"
- "Tithes are only on what is left after necessary expenses and after taxes"
- "In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe."

DR. KELLY NEVER AGREED TO THAT STATEMENT.

Why then was Russell Kelly saying that such a statement(s) would make Dr. Kennedy to be 'in much more agreement with myself'? You have already said:

garyarnold:

Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches.

"Either way", you make Dr. Kennedy to agree with Russell; whereas it was Russell himself who was claiming that "agreement" from Dr. James Kennedy's 'tithing pamphlet (p63)'. Dr. Kennedy did not indicate ANYWHERE that he was agreeing with Russell, as you're making out here; nor is there anything from Dr. James D. Kennedy that said anything about agreeing with "SOME" of what Russell was teaching. It was Russell who was claiming "agreement" from Kennedy, not the other way round, so please don't try to cheat on that!

Even if you want to cheat and make Dr. Kennedy to agree with Russell Kelly, did Russell ever teach anywhere that "in light of these Biblical principles, I encourage believers in Christ to tithe?" If no, how come you are so bent on making your fiction more real than reality itself? Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

ogajim:

Is it me or does "wordtalkt" remind anyone else of "Pilgrim.1" (wait for it) "viaro"

I think we've seen this Ecclesiastical gymnastics on NL before especially on the tithe threads.

Oga, you will find that at least two of us had a similar feeling of "deja vu already".  See here and also here.  

Meanwhile is it me or is it indeed the case that amidst all these obfuscatory gymnastics, we still haven't been provided with an explanation of this "principle" thing? Perhaps I should remind honourable posters of the words of the eminently eloquent Sir Humphrey

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.

garyarnold:

It's so simple. When Dr. Kelly is giving his comments, they are in italics. When the info is coming from Dr. Kennedy, it is not in italics.

So, again I ask: Even if you want to cheat and make Dr. Kennedy to agree with Russell Kelly, did Russell ever teach anywhere that "in light of these Biblical principles, I encourage believers in Christ to tithe?" If no, how come you are so bent on making your fiction more real than reality itself? Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

This is not the first time I have read Kelly claiming agreement from others. Anti-tithing propagandists often use that jingoist style of argument. The funny thing is that those who are unaware and can't think for themselves just recycle such jingoism from these guys and end up confusing themselves even more.

This is why I've noted that where you may be too strongly pushing a view that you haven't grasped, you would only end up making a bad case for what you're peddling. I watched in amazement how you often posted that "list of tithing opponents" anytime people ask you questions about your claims. Rather than be reasonable with them, you become reactive and try to overwhelm them with name-calling and accusations of falsehood. I tried to warn you, but you didn't seem to care at all - even though it was obvious that many of the names on your "list" actually DID NOT oppose tithing.

Try not make people say what they argued against tithing when in very fact they did not - as in Dr. James D. Kennedy or Thomas Aquinas or Didache or Mark Drisco or Clement . . . (just go and do more research and you will get my drift).

Why then was Russell Kelly saying that such a statement(s) would make Dr. Kennedy to be 'in much more agreement with myself'?

He didn’t say that particular statement would make Dr. Kennedy to be in much more agreement with himself.

Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

He didn’t.  I NEVER said that Dr. Kennedy said he was agreeing with Dr. Kelly

Rather than come back and say he made a mistake, wordtalk just goes on as though he never makes a mistake.  A very self-righteous person who can never admit doing wrong.

Wordtalk - you MISQUOTED Dr. Kelly.  Fess up to it like a man.

Now, can wordtalk give us THE tithing principle that he insists is there, and tell us where it came from?

Obviously not or wordtalk would have given it to us long ago.

garyarnold:

Why then was Russell Kelly saying that such a statement(s) would make Dr. Kennedy to be 'in much more agreement with myself'?

He didn’t say that particular statement would make Dr. Kennedy to be in much more agreement with himself.

Please note the 's' in bracket - "statement(s)".

Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

He didn’t.  I NEVER said that Dr. Kennedy said he was agreeing with Dr. Kelly

Oh? But you did say that 'Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches', didn't you? That would be different from saying that Dr. Kennedy's pamphlet would agree with Kelly's teaching. The difference is that Kelly was claiming agreement from Dr. Kennedy whereas Kennedy himself did not state anywhere that he expressed such an "agreement". Not even when you try cheating with the non-existent 'SOME'!

Rather than come back and say he made a mistake, wordtalk just goes on as though he never makes a mistake.  A very self-righteous person who can never admit doing wrong.

The mistake was not mine - I'm asking you to explain the fiction you've been hawking on this blog.

Wordtalk - you MISQUOTED Dr. Kelly.  Fess up to it like a man.

No, I didn't - this is why I leave quotes in quotation marks. Quote the mis-quotes and then align them with the original quotes.

Your reaction is convincing me even more strongly that you don't know Kelly's style of argument at all. If you didn't, you would be even more worried on his behalf for his half-quotes and mis-quotes of others who material appear on his website. Should I serve you examples, garyarnold?

Reading through the discussion about what James Kennedy said, it's obvious that he does not believe in tithing. He may use the word "tithe" but when you make all the allowances he made - for paying for food, etc - and giving a tithe of the rest, that's neither Biblical tithing nor the tithing preached in churches today or even on this thread. In fact, he "short-changes" many tithe preachers. E.g., you earn $10,000. Many tithe teachers would tell you your tithe is $1000. Others, would say, your tithe is a tenth of your net, i.e. post-tax income. So, if tax is 30%, your tithe is 1/10 of $7,000, which is $700. What Kennedy is saying is that from the  $10,000, you can deduct your taxes, mortgage, car note, food costs, etc. When you've done all that, you may have $1000 left. Then you tithe $100 which is a tenth of  the remaining $1000. There's not one tithe teacher I know that believes that that $100 is a tithe and that a person that does that is a tither. Please, nobody should insult our intelligence by saying that because Kennedy uses the word tithe, he's saying anything remotely close to what tithe teachers believe. Instead, he's saying something closer to what non-tithe teachers believe - in fact he's more lenient than they are.

garyarnold:

Now, can wordtalk give us THE tithing principle that he insists is there, and tell us where it came from?

Obviously not or wordtalk would have given it to us long ago.

Since I outlined what I meant by my use of "Biblical principle" in consonance with Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis (and even gave you a quote from Thomas Aquinas' use of it), you guys felt it was way beyond your horizon and never tried to discuss it. So, I'll just let you wallow in your self-pity by asking you again to explain for me what Russell Kelly was claiming "in agreement" of the "biblical principles" in his quote of Dr. James D. Kennedy - have you even attempted a dot on that?

Tell me, after all I have said and explained and reposted about what I meant by Biblical principle in hermeneutics and exegesis, which one of them did you ever try to discuss? You flat out just kept repeating the same slogan in denial, only to come forward affirming that anti-tithing theologians are contradicting themselves.

Since you were happy to post your "list of tithing opponents", please tell us in plain terms what sort of "biblical principles" your Russell Kelly was "in agreement" with Dr. James D. Kennedy? Where can we find their own "biblical principles"?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.352.html#msg8882657

wordtalk:

Since I outlined what I meant by my use of "Biblical principle" in consonance with Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis (and even gave you a quote from Thomas Aquinas' use of it), you guys felt it was way beyond your horizon and never tried to discuss it. So, I'll just let you wallow in your self-pity by asking you again to explain for me what Russell Kelly was claiming "in agreement" of the "biblical principles" in his quote of Dr. James D. Kennedy - have you even attempted a dot on that?

I think it's easier to state in one sentence what the tithing principle is than making reference to Aquinas or such big words as hermeneutics and exegesis. Those ones can come to support your position after you have stated in simple terms what the principle is. And while at it, you can also clarify on the issue of whether tithing is a principle, as opposed to being based on a principle and what the difference is.

nlMediator:

I think it's easier to state in one sentence what the tithing principle is than making reference to Aquinas or such big words as hermeneutics and exegesis. Those ones can come to support your position after you have stated in simple terms what the principle is. And while at it, you can also clarify on the issue of whether tithing is a principle, as opposed to being based on a principle and what the difference is.

Perhaps it's easier to see I've said it plainly many times over. But since those asking are denying categorically that no theologian has ever spoken about tithing as a principle, that was why I made reference to Thomas Aquinas who appears on the same list that the denier had posted. There are other theologians (tithing and anti-tithing) who have also done the same; since those who are vehemently opposed to any mention of tithing can't read beyond their cubicles, I thought they should leave their arm-chairs and look over such references - it's not difficult.

nlMediator:

Reading through the discussion about what James Kennedy said, it's obvious that he does not believe in tithing.

Not if you have read Kennedy. If you can access some of his material on the subject, you'll find he was using the word 'tithe' and 'tithing' in clear and deliberate manner. Those who probably have read his material have issues with him because they know what he was talking about - and he made himself clear enough.

However, although I don't have direct access to link to in this post, you might like to consider an extract of a review -

Ending Financial Worries
D. James Kennedy. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge Ministries, n.d.
Pastor and author D. James Kennedy begins this sermon with Malachi 3:10: “ ‘Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this [, ] and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.’ ” God says that if we obey his command to tithe, he will bless us abundantly. Do we believe him? Kennedy states that the key to life is trusting God. If we would only open our clenched fists and trust God with our money and lives, he will be faithful to his promise and bless us richly.

http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=8&page=556

The highlighted is a quote of Dr. Kennedy's in reference to Malachi 3. Nobody should feel his or her intelligence insulted if they would only do a simple check

It is obvious that wordtalk doesn't have an answer as to what the principle of tithing is.  It is also obvious that wordtalk misquoted Dr. Kelly.

Dr. Kelly says that Dr. Kennedy somewhat agrees with him because Dr. Kennedy agrees that you support your family and pay your bills before you give to the church.  That is one example.

Those following this blog must have seen that once wordtalk said the principle of tithing is "tenth," and then some of us asked questions about giving a tenth of just anything, he no longer discusses that topic.  I think he saw, at that time, how flawed his principle is.

It doesn't matter how many theologians or anyone else claims that they are following a Biblical principle when they tithe, no one is able to say exactly what that principle is.  Fact is, since tithing was always on assets and never on income, you can't come up with a tithing principle on one's income that would be supported by the scriptures.

Some will just never get it.  But they will continue to debate to the end.

Wordtalk said, "But since those asking are denying categorically that no theologian has ever spoken about tithing as a principle, "

Really? Where has anyone said that NO theologian has EVER spoken about tithing as a principle?" MISQUOTING AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN. Will it ever stop?

garyarnold:

It is obvious that wordtalk doesn't have an answer as to what the principle of tithing is.  It is also obvious that wordtalk misquoted Dr. Kelly.

It is obvious you're simply a propagandist. If you feel I misquoted Dr. Kelly, the simple thing for you to have done would be to quote where I misquoted him, then align the misquote with the original. End of. To keep playing the typical demagoguery of an anti-tithing propagandist is below you - please grow up.

Dr. Kelly says that Dr. Kennedy somewhat agrees with him because Dr. Kennedy agrees that you support your family and pay your bills before you give to the church.  That is one example.

Then you don't know Russell. He is fond of claiming agreement from others as if those he is quoting or listing have said anything in statement that they agreed with him. This is why you blatantly said that it was Kennedy who agreed with Kelly, and I asked you to provide me with a statement from Kennedy making such an "agreement". Where do you find Kennedy saying so? The best you offered was a lame excuse that 'Kennedy' was agreeing with "SOME".

Those following this blog must have seen that once wordtalk said the principle of tithing is "tenth," and then some of us asked questions about giving a tenth of just anything, he no longer discusses that topic.  I think he saw, at that time, how flawed his principle is.

So you already saw that, and yet pretend I never made any allusion to that. Yes, I stop paying you guys any attention, because when I asked you for a simple DEFINITION of 'tithe', you turned your comments into a circus parade. That is why I left you with quotes from others - names which you yourself have posted on your "LIST". The best you have done is acknowledge you inconsistency.

It doesn't matter how many theologians or anyone else claims that they are following a Biblical principle when they tithe, no one is able to say exactly what that principle is.

It does not matter, but you have Aquinas and others who have explained their meaning in your list? Are you for real? WHY do you have them claiming what they never claimed as "opponents" in the first place?

Fact is, since tithing was always on assets and never on income, you can't come up with a tithing principle on one's income that would be supported by the scriptures.

Oh, boy! And you have Kennedy "agreeing with" Russell that "In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe"?? Yes, I remember - Russell, according to you, does not agree with Kennedy; but "either way", you must bend Kennedy to agree with Russell?!?

Some will just never get it.  But they will continue to debate to the end.

In case you haven't noticed, you're not fit for a 'debate' - you don't know what it means. I've been asking you to stand up for what you claim, I won't even scare you with the word "debate".