@ snowwy,

Do you believe tithing still continues to stand based on pre-mosaic law? Yes or No

Joagbaje:

The principles if God transcend dispensations . Either they originate under the law or before the law. These are spiritual truths.  People just ignorantly give a blanket assumption .why does paul make reference to certain things in the law.

The things done away in the law are the things Christ fulfilled. Tithe has no connection with Christ death. The only connection is his priesthood. Which is forever . As long as there's a high priest ,there must be tithing.

THANK YOU. If they are against tithing but believe in offerings . It's hypocrisy. And if they don't believe in giving offerings to God. Then what is their sacrifice.  "FREEWILL" it's also part of old testament principle. You can't chose one part to take.

First of all, I didn't say I believe in offering. I said GIVING. Giving is a nature of God. Churches collect offerings today during every meetings but it is wrong. We have a foundation built by early Apostles and that is what we build on. Whenever the early church is in need, believers give not when they gather everytime as against today's practice. That is a different issue anyway.

You said Christ death has no connection with tithe? Are you saying, as an egg is, assuming it as the law and tithe is the yolk. When someone, Christ break that egg to give us sometime better. Are you saying we should still pick only the yolk that was broken along the egg, fry it and eat? Is this what you are saying?

Again, you said Paul made reference to the law concerning somethings. Kindly share with us such things if they relate to tithes or he was referring to such to explain certain things.

You also said, as long as there is high priest,there must be tithe. I hope you are not referring to Melchizedek. Please be reminded that, he didn't have father or mother and without genealogy but Jesus,our high priest has mother,genealogy in Matthew chapter 1 and from the tribe of Judah. I guess you know little about the priesthood of Melchizedek.

Did the type of tithe Abram gave end when God gave the Mosaic law?

Since Numbers 31 conflicts with what Abram did, I must conclude that Abram's type of tithe ended when the Mosaic law began.

Therefore, the type of tithing done before the law ended when the law began, and tithing during the law ended at the cross.

It is also impossible to define tithing before the law as the ONLY example we have in scripture is a tenth of war spoils.

What Abram did was NOT both before the law and during the law.

@goshen360,
Yes, I believe so. I believe the father of faith gave tithes in honour to God. The mosaic law exposed it.
I can see you see offering as wrong as well. there will always be a call for offering, it's left to you if you don't want to.
I think you should also know that Jesus delivered us from the curse of the law. Read up Romans 2 and 3.
Giving was the order of the day in the old testament. It did not just start in the NT.
We give to the work of the ministry in different ways, the poor, needy, family etc.
So which of the giving do you do?


@joagbaje, some very strange statements made me respond till this point but I think with all that has been stated so far, let the Holy Spirit take control of the rest.
I was going through the family thread while NL was locked for posting and again saw a really good work of yours for the Obuhs. i can see you are really letting your light shine. God bless you. Another project is in the offing. Guess it's another opportunity for us.

Joagbaje:

I hardly read your posts they are empty .

What you read is of no interest to me Jo Its the poison you post am interested in. I dont even know why you are reading this one

Joagbaje:

Stop talking about what you don't know, rather sit and watch ,

Sit and watch you post   you know thats not going to happen and for the record, NL is not a t.v channel

Snowwy:

@goshen360,
Yes, I believe so. I believe the father of faith gave tithes in honour to God. The mosaic law exposed it.
I can see you see offering as wrong as well. there will always be a call for offering, it's left to you if you don't want to. I think you should also know that Jesus delivered us from the curse of the law. Read up Romans 2 and 3.
Giving was the order of the day in the old testament. It did not just start in the NT.
We give to the work of the ministry in different ways, the poor, needy, family etc.
So which of the giving do you do?

Well, I guess you dont want us to go into that of the pre-mosaic law which Abraham did. But that's ok. We are fellow workers in the vineyard of God but we must be careful what we teach God's people. What Abraham did wasn't a commandment of God and it should be left open and not as teaching as many teachers of tithe does today. Besides, Abraham didn't give his personal properties. Again, Abraham was rich before this tithe of a tithe and we are not told he was rich by tithing. Also, Abraham didn't give tithe, he gave ALL of the spoils without taking anything except what the servants had already eaten. So many things we can deduct from Abraham's account.

Talking about giving. Giving is the nature of God and should be done as free will. This is the new testament order. When people are taught to love God, they will have it naturally to give and freely as every is blessed.

Above all, you are a wonderful brother and tithe or not tithes doesn't keep us away from the love of Christ as we have differences in this aspect.

My e-handshake once again.

goshen360:

Well, I guess you dont want us to go into that of the pre-mosaic law which Abraham did. But that's ok. We are fellow workers in the vineyard of God but we must be careful what we teach God's people. What Abraham did wasn't a commandment of God and it should be left open and not as teaching as many teachers of tithe does today. Besides, Abraham didn't give his personal properties. Again, Abraham was rich before this tithe of a tithe and we are not told he was rich by tithing. Also, Abraham didn't give tithe, he gave ALL of the spoils without taking anything except what the servants had already eaten. So many things we can deduct from Abraham's account.

Talking about giving. Giving is the nature of God and should be done as free will. This is the new testament order. When people are taught to love God, they will have it naturally to give and freely as every is blessed.

Above all, you are a wonderful brother and tithe or not tithes doesn't keep us away from the love of Christ as we have differences in this aspect.

My e-handshake once again.

@goshen,
if you actually go through the thread, you'll see discussions on the tithe Abraham gave.
Yes Abraham gave tithe just once on war spoils just as the bible records, he met the priest once. It shows alot of His heart towards God just as He could leave his father's land at God's command and even give his Isaac. Alot can be learnt from him.
Abel had that heart too, thats why he gave the firstborn of his flock, against his brother who gave of or some of his crops. Thats why the bible said what it did in Heb. 11:4.
I know Abraham didn't take his portion and he gave reason, (he didn't want the king of Sodom to say he made him rich), not because he was generous about it.
Yes Abraham was rich before and after he tithed.
It was exposed in the mosaic era and the times of the kings & the prophets as well as in the time of Jesus, then referenced by Paul.

Tithing has lots of benefits which I've experienced. Truth is pastor did not have to tell me to tithe. I'ld been tithing and giving alms since my high school days because I knew God's word on them and I'ld always prayed to be able to do more and it's been increasing astronomically.

I have nothing against those that don't tithe or give offering, i've just been amazed at the anger they have at those that do.
There's no way giving is limited to the poor.
The NT fully bears witness to giving to parents, poor, needy, saints and the gospel.
I can see you looked past our seeming differences and still extend a hand of friendship. Let all do according to their hearts so far it's based on God's word. As I forsee this will still be our conclusion.
There are other great things to discuss.
*e-handshake*

^^^ Let everyone of us keep doing good anyway. I rest my case for now. God bless you.

Does that those who believe church tax tithe is required should keep paying it while those who think otherwise should follow their thoughts?

^^^^^^^^^^
Do you have a better suggestion? By all means share it.

[b]@ joeagbaje,

@snowy,
I never cease to be amazed at your ability to endure this much on this issue. Many righteous men have left the argument seeing it as waste of time.but at least some individuals are still learning one or two things from you.

quote from joeagbaje;

Many righteous men have left the argument seeing it as waste of time

YOU DECLARED MANY THAT COULD NOT SUSTAIN THEIR CLAIM AFTER THE LIES THEY BUILD ON HAS BEEN EXPOSED HAD LEFT IN DISAPPOINTMENT AS RIGTHEOUS? ITS AMAZING,

NOW READ;

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

A TRUE CHRISTIAN IS NEVER TIRED OF SUPLYING FACTS TO SUSTAIN THE TRUTH IN GODS WORD, IS THAT TAKEN?

but at least some individuals are still learning one or two things from you.

FOR YOUR IMFORMATION,YOUR COUNTERPART HERE (snowwy) HAVE NO BASIS, OF DEFINATION OF CHRISTIAN TITHING, SO WHEN THERE IS NO FOUNDATION, HOW WILL PEOPLE LEARN, HE HAS BEEN CONFRONTED WITH MORE THAN ENOUGH FACTS BUT CHOOSE TO LOOK FOR ERRORS OF EVEN DIVERT ISSUES BECAUSE HE GOT NO ANSWER,

HE CANNOT POINT A PARTICULAR PLACE IN THE N.T, WHERE TITHE IS BEEN DIRECTED AT CHRISTIAN,

HORRIBLY, HE MIS QUOTED MATHEW 23:23,(although im not surprised that you even deliberately on your own decided to remove 'woe to you' when you quote that verse so as to fit it with your own meaning)

BUT FOR EMPAHASIS SAKE, LETS COMPARE THIS

Matthew 23:23

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

IF JESUS IS SAYING THAT TITHE MUST NOT BE LEFT UNDONE HERE, THEN THE NEXT MATHEW 15:1-6, WHY DID JESUS SAY THAT THE SAME PHARISEES ''RENDER GODS COMMANDMENT OF NO EFFECT'? WHAT IS THE PARTICULAR THING THAT IS LEFT UNDONE' ? (God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death)

SO SIMPLE, THE ANSWER IS;God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; [a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death

SO THEY MUST FOLLOW GODS 'FULL LAW COMMANDMENT WITHOUT LEAVING ANY ONE INLUDING EXECUTION UNDONE, IS THAT SO
BUT WHY DOES THIS EXECUTION APPLY TO CHRISTIANS WHILE TITHE APPLY TO CHRISTIAN? BOTH OF WHICH JESUS CANVASSED TO THE SAME PHARISEES 'NOT TO BE LEFT UNDONE'.

NOW YOU CAN SEE,ONLY IF YOU WANT TO BE FAIR THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CAN APPLY TITHING MEANT FOR THE JEW WITHOUT APPLYING THE OTHER HARSH,OR EXECUTION ON VERBAL INSULT TO PARENTS TO CHRISTIANS. James 2:10;(10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all)





Mathew 15:1-6,

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; [a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”—6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’[c] Thus you have made the commandment[d] of God of no effect by your tradition.

[b]continued
@ joeagbaje


JESUS DID NOT NECCESARILY STOP 'AN EXISTING LAW ON TITHE' BINDING ON ONLY JEWS WHICH JESUS HIMSELF MET,BUT BECAUSE HIS COMING WILL NOT ONLY PUT AN END TO 'TITHING DEMANDED BY LAW' BUT THE WHOLE ENTIRE 'BINDING WRITTEN LAW' IS ABOUT TO END,

BUT THEN, WHY DO WE HAVE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE? the answer not far fetched;

Galatians 3:19,20.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

AND MORE TO THAT,OUR JUSTIFICATION IS NOT THROUGH LAW, BUT BY FAITH;vs 23,24


23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.

24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.

AND TO NAIL THE HEAD, THE WHOLE ENTIRE 'BINDING WRITTEN LAW'(that also includes tithes in all its entirety) AS A CODE ENDED WITH THE DEATH OF CHRIST;

colossians 2:14,

14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

AND THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT JESUS DID NOT INSTRUCTS HIS DISCIPLES AND CHRISTIANS TO TITHE, SHED MORE LIGHT ON THE FACT THAT TITHE WILL END 'ON THE CROSS'.NEITHER PAUL AND ALL OTHER APOSTLES TEACH TITHE TO CHRISTIANS,

GOD IS 'NOT OF CONFUSION' NEVER.

[/b]

[b]@ joeagbaje ,

PLEASE INSTEAD OF ANSWERING QUESTION DIRECTLY, WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO DIVERT ATTENTION WHEN FACED WITH FACTS,

HOW DO I MEAN;


zikky quote;

Snowwy believes pre-law tithing continues to operate outside of the mosaic law. This is something i have been trying to get snowwy to understand. Pre-law tithing was either nailed to the temple wall or was subsumed into the mosaic law (levitical tithe). If Melchi had surfaced at the time the mosaic law was in operation, he would not be receiving tithe unless he was from the tribe of Levi.

Stop talking about what you don't know, rather sit and watch ,

Numbers 31:25-45

Pre-law tithing was either nailed to the temple wall or was subsumed into the mosaic law (levitical tithe). If Melchi had surfaced at the time the mosaic law was in operation, he would not be receiving tithe unless he was from the tribe of Levi.

WHY DO YOU IGNORE A 'FACT' HERE? ZIKKY IS MAKING A GREAT POINT HERE THAT THE TENTH PORTION OF SPOILS IS JUST A 'TRIBUTE OFFERING’ OF A VOW BY ABRAHAM , THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW A PARTICULAR STANDARD, OR LAW, AND THE POINT ZIKKY MADE HERE WAS CORRECT IF YOU FEEL THAT ANYTHING CAN BE A STANDARD FORMED FROM THIS ACT IT WILL BE INVALID OR VOIDED BECAUSE IT IS GONE WITH THE LAW ON THE CROSS.

AND TO CONCUR WITH ZIKKY THAT THE SAME ABRAHAM 'TRIBUTE OFFERING' TO MELCHI HAS BEEN 'SUBSUMED' OR INCORPORATED INTO THE LAW COVENANT AND THEN GONE WITH THE LAW,
PLS OPEN YOUR BIBLE AND READ; THE BIBLE VERSE OFTEN DODGED BY TITHES ADVOCATES FOLLOWING ABRAHAM'S TENTH PORTION TRIBUTE, AND PLS MATCH THIS BIBLE PORTION ;

NUMBERS 31: 25-45.;

25 Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 26 “Count up the plunder that was taken—of man and beast—you and Eleazar the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; 27 and divide the plunder into two parts, between those who took part in the war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation. 28 And levy a tribute for the LORD on the men of war who went out to battle: one of every five hundred of the persons, the cattle, the donkeys, and the sheep; 29 take it from their half, and give it to Eleazar the priest as a heave offering to theLORD. 30 And from the children of Israel’s half you shall take one of every fifty, drawn from the persons, the cattle, the donkeys, and the sheep, from all the livestock, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.” 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32 The booty remaining from the plunder, which the men of war had taken, was six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, 33 seventy-two thousand cattle,34 sixty-one thousand donkeys, 35 and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man intimately. 36 And the half, the portion for those who had gone out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep; 37 and the LORD’s tribute of the sheep was six hundred and seventy-five. 38 The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which the LORD’s tribute was seventy-two. 39 The donkeys were thirty thousand five hundred, of which theLORD’s tribute was sixty-one. 40 The persons weresixteen thousand, of which the LORD’s tribute was thirty-two persons. 41 So Moses gave the tribute which wasthe LORD’s heave offering to Eleazar the priest, as theLORD commanded Moses.
42 And from the children of Israel’s half, which Moses separated from the men who fought— 43 now the half belonging to the congregation was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, 44 thirty-six thousand cattle, 45 thirty thousand five hundred donkeys,

EXPLANATIONS;


, " (NUM. 31:26) WE SEE THAT HUMANS WERE COUNTED AS "PLUNDER." THEN THE "PLUNDER" WAS DIVIDED BETWEEN THOSE WHO WENT TO WAR AND THOSE WHO DIDN’T. FROM THOSE SPOILS, AN OFFERING WAS GIVEN. THOSE WHO WENT TO WAR WERE TO GIVE ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE HUNDRED PERSONS, CATTLE, DONKEYS, AND SHEEP TO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST. THOSE WHO DIDN’T GO TO WAR HAD TO GIVE ONE OUT OF EVERY FIFTY PERSONS, CATTLE, DONKEYS, AND SHEEP TO THE LEVITES (MINISTERS).

Then they had to give two-tenths of one per cent to the high priest.

Those who didn’t fight had to give two per cent to the Levites (ministers).

Why do tithing teachers not refer to this Scripture and make it the standard for giving? Could it be the simple fact that ten per cent is much more than 2 per cent or two tenths of one per cent?


PLS NOTE;
THIS ‘TRIBUTE OFFERING’ MADE BY ABRAHAM WHICH YOU GUYS BASED YOUR BELIEF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE LAW BUT THIS TIME AROUND,AS IT USED TO BE THAT IT FOLLOWED NO PARTICULAR STANDARD,IS EXPOSED IN LAW AND PRACTICED THIS TIME AROUND WITH LESS THAN TEN PER CENT SHOWS THAT THE ‘TEN PER CENT’ CANVASSED FOR TODAY HAS NO UNIFORMITY, OR A UNIFIED BASIS .SIMPLE AS A.B.C.

THESE VERY COMMANDS WERE GIVEN BY "THE LORD TO MOSES." (NUM. 31:25) THEY ARE GOD’S VERY WORDS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. WHY DO TITHING TEACHERS AVOID REFERENCE TO THIS PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE?ITS INCORPORATED IN LAW AND GONE WITH THE LAW FOR GODS SAKE.

ALSO;

YOU WERE GIVEN 'A CLEAN ANSWER' BELOW BY GARYARNOLD ON YOUR CONCEPT OF 'PRINCIPLE'

Quote from: garyarnold

If you claim the principle of the Levitical tithe was to support "a priesthood," then the principle would be the need to support a priesthood, NOT that it had to be, or should be, a tenth.


"Tenth" is an exact, not a principle.

TENTH IS EXACT AND NOT PRINCIPLE. PLS NOTE THAT.

YOU CANNOT DEMAND AN EXACT PERCENTAGE OF ANYTHING ON WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM ME TO SATISFY ‘GIVING TO THE LORD’ NO,IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH ‘FREE WILL’ WHICH MEANS; I DECIDES, AND NOT THAT YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE TO PRESCRIBE FOR ME TO DECIDE, BUT A FREEWILL GIVING IS AN ACT OF FREELY GIVING ON MY DISCRESION WITHOUT ANY FEELING WHATSOEVER OF BEING COAERSED , AND BESIDES PAUL SAYS THAT,IT IS ACCEPTABLE ‘’ACCORDING TO WHAT ONE HAS, AND NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO OFFER’’



Joeagbajes quote

Offering is a principle, I said earlier, don't get into the petty petty of wave offering ,or sin offering. Those are for the Jews . What counts is that you cant say you are worshiper of God without offerings. Offerings and tithes are based on same principles . Principles are eternal.

LET ME STRESSED ON THIS ( Principles are eternal.)

Do You Think That We Can Just Take Any Or[Color=#000099] Assume Authomatically Principles[/Color] That Relates To Directing Gods People, And Just Because We Feel That We Are Doing It In Gods Favour That We Are Really Pleasing God?

LETS SEE THIS EXAMPLE;BELOW;

AARON'S FAMILY OR SONS ARE TO OFFICIATE AS PRIEST AND HIGH PRIESTS RESPECTIVELY,AND ONLY THE HIGH PRIEST TOUCHES THE TERBANACLE, BUT OTHER LEVITES,ARE TO ALSO WORK AT THE TEMPLE BUT DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THE TERBANACLE BUT COULD CARRY IT ON THEIR SHOULDER PROVIDED THEIR HANDS DOES NOT TOUCH THE TERBANACLE'S HOUSING UNLESS THE STICKS OR LOGS THAT IT RESTS ON.

Numbers 4:15-17

15 And when Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the furnishings of the sanctuary, when the camp is set to go, then the sons of Kohath shall come to carry them; but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.

“These are the things in the tabernacle of meeting which the sons of Kohath are to carry.

16 “The appointed duty of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest is the oil for the light, the sweet incense, the daily grain offering, the anointing oil, the oversight of all the tabernacle, of all that is in it, with the sanctuary and its furnishings.”

Now, While The Terbanacle Was Taken On A Beaultifully Dressed Oxen By King David,And It Was Accompanied By Levites (But Not A Priest), But The Oxen Stumbled And The Terbanacle Was About To Fall And Crash,

Then Uzzah(A Non Priest Levi) Who Was The Closest Grab The Terbanacle From The Seeming Callamity, But What Happened, God Struck Him Dead.

Not Because He Wants To Prevent Thee Crash Which To Everybody Is A Good Decision,But Because He Is Not Yet A Priest, He Assume A Responsibility That Is Without Gods Permmission.


2 sam 6:6,7;

6 And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God. 8 And David became angry because of the Lord’s outbreak against Uzzah; and he called the name of the place Perez Uzzah[c] to this day.


Colossians 2:8

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

BUT THEN, PRINCIPLES TAKEN OUTSIDE GODS PERMISSION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY GOD, NOTE THIS TOO
THE SAME APPLIES TO YOUR COUNTERPART COMPLAINING THAT ONE IS OVER SPIRITUALISING, BUT BELIEVES THAT WE ON OUR OWN CAN DIRECT THINGS WITHOUT FOLLOWING GODS STANDARD FIRST;SEE BELOW,

snowwy'sQUOTE

You are trying to over-spiritualise things.
Even Jesus talked about the 'measure you give'

IF PRINCIPLES ARE TO BE TAKING (according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ) ITS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO GOD.
[/b]

@joagbaje, we are awaiting your response

I'm surprised that many Christians pay tithes.
I too am surprised that there are pastors (who presumably have read the Bible) that charge mandatory tithing.
Charging a mandatory tithing is a simple robbery.
In Malachi 3:10 God requires tithing to the Levitical priests only (not the entire world, not the rest of the people) as a punishment for stealing their offerings.
Thus we understand that tithing is a divine punishment for thieves.
Anyone who has stolen from God, let him pay.

Addition.
In cases in which the Bible refers to a tithe, we talk about oil, grains, animals, which were burned as a holocaust to the Jewish god.
Never gave a tithe in the form of money, jewelry, etc ,
The obligatoru payment of tithe is a mockery of the Bible, theft immoral people who want to live without working.
Are you so foolish as that?
My respect for all.

But why do most pastors still preach compulsory tithing even when it's not in the new testament, and even in the old testament they never payed tithe with money?
Is it that they dont know is there more to it?

@Fxking2012

I don't mean to criticise you as such because I actually like you and many things you post. However, because of the post on that "mastur.bation" thread, where you said:

But for pastor Chris to say it's ok, I believe him becos he is a very learned man in the things of the spirit and would never say something is ok if it isn't

This same Oyakhilome has said those who do not "tithe" are robbing God!

Do you now see that it is not enough to believe something simply because Oyakhilome says it?

Luke 12:13-21

New International Version (NIV)


The Parable of the Rich Fool

13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?”

15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”


16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest.

17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’


18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain.

19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’


20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’


21 “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

Hello all,

I've watched with interest the back-and-forth in this thread. Like all others that preceed this one, comments and arguments seem to only be recycled from other threads here and elsewhere.

Bottomline is that a believer should choose what and how they want to give as long as doing so does not bother on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory'). So, those Christians who want to express their giving in the form of tithing/tithes (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') are absolutely free to do so without arguments to the contrary. For those who do not wish to express their giving in this way or any other way, it is entirely up to them to also do as they may rather than harangue others how not to give.

For the rest, a few comments are fantastically duplicitious, to say the very least. For instance,

Pre-law tithing was either nailed to the temple wall or was subsumed into the mosaic law (levitical tithe).

Sorry, but that is NOT taught anywhere in the Bible. There is NOT A SINGLE VERSE showing that 'pre-law tithing' was nailed to any Temple wall or subsumed into the Mosaic law or Levitical tithes. Fallacies like these emerge out of the air with absolutely no Biblical hermeneutics to underscore them.

WHY DO YOU IGNORE A 'FACT' HERE? ZIKKY IS MAKING A GREAT POINT HERE THAT THE TENTH PORTION OF SPOILS IS JUST A 'TRIBUTE OFFERING’ OF A VOW BY ABRAHAM , THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW A PARTICULAR STANDARD, OR LAW, AND THE POINT ZIKKY MADE HERE WAS CORRECT IF YOU FEEL THAT ANYTHING CAN BE A STANDARD FORMED FROM THIS ACT IT WILL BE INVALID OR VOIDED BECAUSE IT IS GONE WITH THE LAW ON THE CROSS.

While that 'point' may have its own bearing, nothing in Scripture shows Abraham gave tithes as a 'vow' - at best, it could be described as a worship-response, rather than as a vow. To read it as a vow is reading the texts backwards and drawing on eisegesis, not exegesis.

And talking about a 'standard', yes indeed, Abraham's tithes lays the foundation for Biblical tithes historically (please note: I did NOT say that Abraham was the first in history to give tithes; rather, historically his gifts to Melchizedek lays the foundation for BIBLICAL TITHES). This is shown in Hebrews 7, as well as in the original Hebrew for 'tithes' in the Old Testament.

AND TO CONCUR WITH ZIKKY THAT THE SAME ABRAHAM 'TRIBUTE OFFERING' TO MELCHI HAS BEEN 'SUBSUMED' OR INCORPORATED INTO THE LAW COVENANT AND THEN GONE WITH THE LAW

1. You will be hard pressed to show that Abraham's tithes were 'subsumed' into the Law Covenant;

2. You will be harder pressed to show that Abraham's tithes were 'gone with the Law'.

In the first place, Abraham was NEVER UNDER THE LAW - so, what he did was not 'subsumed' into the Law; and what the Law did not originate from Abraham cannot therefore be nullified by the same external Law.

I am very open to discuss this with you, BENIMOORE. So, please feel very free to engage, if you may.

Other issues will be taken up later. Thanks.

There are thousands of examples in the Old Testament.
But let us the present ,
We seek simple examples ,
In Catholic churches light candles , flowers are placed depositing money , ,
When we speak of offerings not only talking animal or cereal ,
I see constantly mentioned the Bible, but there are no details that are before the eyes of any of us ,
My respect for all.

wordtalk:

Hello all,

Bottomline is that a believer should choose what and how they want to give as long as doing so does not bother on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory'). So, those Christians who want to express their giving in the form of tithing/tithes (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') are absolutely free to do so without arguments to the contrary. For those who do not wish to express their giving in this way or any other way, it is entirely up to them to also do as they may rather than harangue others how not to give.

Seriously, I believe the above should really solve the issue. However, one should keep an eye out on any type of 'coercion' that might highlight some deception on the part of the one instigating the collection. And spare me the -you- are -giving- it- to- God- so- give- and- leave-to God-to deal-with-fraud nonsense. If you are giving it to a Charlatan, then that is exactly what you are doing. No silly euphemisms.

Ptolomeus:

I'm surprised that many Christians pay tithes.

I am one of those Christians who give through tithes (and other types or expressions of giving), so please don't be surprised.

In Malachi 3:10 God requires tithing to the Levitical priests only (not the entire world, not the rest of the people) as a punishment for stealing their offerings.

Malachi 3:10 does not teach that tithing was a 'punishment for stealing their offerings', as you put it. It is indeed surprising that you misread that verse. Whose offerings were stolen - 'their offerings' or God's offerings? Malachi 3:8 shows it was God's offerings that the WHOLE NATION had stolen -

           "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me."

It does not say 'ye have robbed us', so where did you get the so-called 'punishment for stealing their offerings'?

Thus we understand that tithing is a divine punishment for thieves.

That again, is a huge misreading of the text. If tithing was a punishment for thieves, would you find me the text to show it was the same in Abraham's case? Was Abraham a thief and only gave tithes to bear his 'punishment'?

Never gave a tithe in the form of money, jewelry, etc ,

You're dead wrong. The only reasons I know why people argue that BIBLICAL tithes were "only" food and not money, jewelry, etc. is because -

1. They have never studied their Bibles carefully but play fast and loose with eisegesis

2. They do not understand what they mean by "Biblical tithes"

3. They look for flimsy excuses to exclude Abraham's tithes from the Bible even though they were recognized in BOTH the OT and NT (which is why you hear half-baked theologians argue that Abraham's tithes are 'pagan' tithes).

On the contrary, study the Bible carefully and you will find indeed that titthes included  MONEY and JEWELRY - at least, in Abraham's case.

wordtalk:

I am one of those Christians who give through tithes (and other types or expressions of giving), so please don't be surprised.

Malachi 3:10 does not teach that tithing was a 'punishment for stealing their offerings', as you put it. It is indeed surprising that you misread that verse. Whose offerings were stolen - 'their offerings' or God's offerings? Malachi 3:8 shows it was God's offerings that the WHOLE NATION had stolen -

            "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me."

It does not say 'ye have robbed us', so where did you get the so-called 'punishment for stealing their offerings'?

That again, is a huge misreading of the text. If tithing was a punishment for thieves, would you find me the text to show it was the same in Abraham's case? Was Abraham a thief and only gave tithes to bear his 'punishment'?

You're dead wrong. The only reasons I know why people argue that BIBLICAL tithes were "only" food and not money, jewelry, etc. is because -

1. They have never studied their Bibles carefully but play fast and loose with eisegesis

2. They do not understand what they mean by "Biblical tithes"

3. They look for flimsy excuses to exclude Abraham's tithes from the Bible even though they were recognized in BOTH the OT and NT (which is why you hear half-baked theologians argue that Abraham's tithes are 'pagan' tithes).

On the contrary, study the Bible carefully and you will find indeed that titthes included  MONEY and JEWELRY - at least, in Abraham's case.

In Malachi 3:10 God punishes the priests for stealing.
In fact, tithing is set by God to the Levites.
No two interpretations.
The tithes were specifically in oils, grains etc. NEVER cash.
The tithes were burned as a holocaust ,  imagine you burning the money to God!
Dear Sir, tithing is a currency current invention
GOD PLEASE do not need money!
Come back to read Malachi, please ,
Abraham's case is special, it can only be regarded as something special situation of the person who cheated on his wife with her ​​maid Sara without God considered a failure.
3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. And ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for you, the whole nation have robbed me.
3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing until it overflows.
3:11 I will rebuke the devourer for you, and not destroy the fruits of the earth, and your vine in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.
Not stolen?
They were not punished?
Who interprets the Bible wrong?
My respects

@wordtalk
You have come with your biblical gymnastics again is there anything in scriptures to suggest that Abraham's tithe was setting an example for believers to follow. Even at that the man made version of tithes preached in churches today bears little resemblance to Abraham's tithe or the levitical one. I would also use this opportunity to remind you for the upteenth time that those who argue against tithing as it is preached today are merely arguing a false doctrine that is being used to rip off believers today cause they are being fraudulently mis-led into believing it is a christian requirement. If most preachers were honest enough to preach the truth about mandatory tithing's irrelevance to christians and only preach it as optional, trust me nobody would be up in arms against it.

Pastor Kun:

@wordtalk
You have come with your biblical gymnastics again is there anything in scriptures to suggest that Abraham's tithe was setting an example for believers to follow. Even at that the man made version of tithes preached in churches today bears little resemblance to Abraham's tithe or the levitical one. I would also use this opportunity to remind you for the upteenth time that those who argue against tithing as it is preached today are merely arguing a false doctrine that is being used to rip off believers today cause they are being fraudulently mis-led into believing it is a christian requirement. If most preachers were honest enough to preach the truth about mandatory tithing's irrelevance to christians and only preach it as optional, trust me nobody would be up in arms against it.

I totally agree with you.
Worst of the biblical gymnastics, is that even this no well-acted.
It is impossible to defend the indefensible.

While looking forward to your rejoinder/reply, BENIMOORE, let me highlight something in your comments that made me join in discussing this thread -

BERNIMOORE:

PLS OPEN YOUR BIBLE AND READ; THE BIBLE VERSE OFTEN DODGED BY TITHES ADVOCATES FOLLOWING ABRAHAM'S TENTH PORTION TRIBUTE, AND PLS MATCH THIS BIBLE PORTION  ;

Aight, just to assure you that there are many people who 'advocate' tithing and who do not 'dodge' the Bible verses you might present. So, let's look at what you have presumed -

NUMBERS 31: 25-45.;

25 Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 26 “Count up the plunder that was taken—of man and beast—you and Eleazar the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; 27 and divide the plunder into two parts, between those who took part in the war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation. . . .

. . . <snip>

. . .

Why do tithing teachers not refer to this Scripture and make it the standard for giving? Could it be the simple fact that ten per cent is much more than 2 per cent or two tenths of one per cent?

Let me first answer by asking a few questions so I can get your context -

1. Does Numbers 31 portray or exemplify TITHING or TITHES?
(I know a whole bunch of anti-tithing theologians who ruch to Numbers 31 to argue "tithes" or "tithe-tax", neither of which that passage teaches. So, my question is to enable me understand if you assume that Numbers 31 is also teaching TITHING/TITHES, then in the context of your answer, I shall show you what you have patently missed out.)

2. Are you aware that Numbers 31 shows that the people gave FAR MORE THAN 1% or 2%?
(please do read beyond verse 45 so you see that the people of Israel gave FAR MORE THAN the traditional '1%' or 'one percent' which many anti-tithers argue for in that chapter).

PLS NOTE;
THIS ‘TRIBUTE OFFERING’ MADE BY ABRAHAM WHICH YOU GUYS BASED YOUR BELIEF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE LAW BUT THIS TIME AROUND,AS IT USED TO BE THAT IT FOLLOWED NO PARTICULAR STANDARD,IS EXPOSED IN LAW AND PRACTICED THIS TIME AROUND WITH LESS THAN TEN PER CENT SHOWS THAT THE ‘TEN PER CENT’ CANVASSED FOR TODAY  HAS NO  UNIFORMITY, OR A UNIFIED  BASIS .SIMPLE AS A.B.C.

Your 'A.B.C' is self-contradictory for the following reasons:

1. Abraham's tithes were not 'incorporated' into the Law; rather, Scripture shows that it was the Levitical tithes that were 'subsumed' into Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek. Read Hebrews 7:9 - 'One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham.' It was Levi who paid tithes in Abraham, not the other way round.

2. The point above is important, because if we fail to see how important Abraham's tithes were, then we all fall into the fallacy of presuming that Abraham's tithes were 'subsumed' into the Levitical tithes while Scripture shows the direct opposite.

3. Scripture indeed does not argue for a 'uniformity' in a legalistic manner. In this case, while Abraham's gifts to Melchizedek is called TITHES in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and NT (Heb. 7:6), what Israel gave after their conquest in Numbers 31 is NOT called 'tithes' - although these acts of giving are on the very same valid expressions of GIFTS rather than legal fees.

4. In other words, the point in #3 above shows that there was a UNIFIED BASIS in expression and value of these acts before God. The unified basis rests on the understanding that tithes under the Levitical system were given as a 'GIFT' which in Hebrew is commonly known as TERUMAH (translated as 'heave offering'). Please compare these -

(a) Numbers 18:24 - Israel's tithes were called 'heave offering' (i.e., 'terumah') - 'the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD'.

(b) although Numbers 31 does not speak of tithes as such, yet what they gave was valued as a 'heave offering' (i.e., 'terumah') - 'And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD'S heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. ' (see verse 29 and 41).

The 'UNIFIED BASIS' rests in the value of the GIFT, which is the 'terumah' - in both Numbers 18 and 31; and though Abraham's tithes were not described as a 'terumah', yet it actually bears this significance from Gen. 14:20 in worship-response to the pronouncements of God's high priest at the time, Melchizedek.

THESE VERY COMMANDS WERE GIVEN BY "THE LORD TO MOSES." (NUM. 31:25) THEY ARE GOD’S VERY WORDS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. WHY DO TITHING TEACHERS AVOID REFERENCE TO THIS PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE?ITS INCORPORATED IN LAW AND GONE WITH THE LAW FOR GODS SAKE.

Tithing teachers do not avoid reference to this passage. On the contrary, I have just enuciated the passage above to show that there is no need to make reference to it since it DOES NOT teach tithing. Why would tithing teachers therefore make reference to it when it does not bear such a significance on the subject of tithing.

Quite to the contrary, when anti-tithers make treference to numbers 31, they have often fallen flat on their faces to show how hollow their hermeneutics is! No theologian worth his onions would be arguing tithes from Numbers 31 - because that passage does not teach on the subject.

Second, anti-tithers who argue that tithing is gone with the Law have a huge problem explaining WHY Paul used the same Law of Moses to teach CHRISTIANS about giving and supporting God's ministers in the New Testament!! Quite often, when I have quoted 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 to show this fact, many anti-tithers have ducked, excused and scurried away from this fact only to expose the shoddy arguments they have been presenting.

Ptolomeus:

It is impossible to defend the indefensible.

I entered this thread expecting to see sob tales as above. You just fulfilled my suspicion. If you do have anything besides the incoherence you spout out, please share. If not, hiding behind the usual anti-tithers' jingoism is only risible.

wordtalk:

I entered this thread expecting to see sob tales as above. You just fulfilled my suspicion. If you do have anything besides the incoherence you spout out, please share. If not, hiding behind the usual anti-tithers' jingoism is only risible.

It would be important that if you quote Malachi, you should read it sometime ,
I do not river such situations, to cause me grief.

Pastor Kun:

@wordtalk
You have come with your biblical gymnastics again

If you cannot address the issues you read in my responses, it were better you passed silently rather than wave your placard of how dull you have become. I did not begin by addressing you nor did i accuse you of anything. If you like to start off an engagement or discussion by first throwing mud, then don't whine when you dig your face into the gutter.

is there anything in scriptures to suggest that Abraham's tithe was setting an example for believers to follow.

Yes, and I have shared my answer in other threads. The one thing I do not like to do is repeat myself over and over again. If you can't take it, tough luck.

Even at that the man made version of tithes preached in churches today bears little resemblance to Abraham's tithe or the levitical one.

In what sense? By the fallacy of denials he argued which i have outlined? Please don't make me laugh. Where do many Christians today get their many doctrines of "Christianity" which they preach and practise today - from where? From Abraham? From the Levites? From who? Does it not make you wonder that many of those who 'agree' to argue against tithing are still the same people who DISAGREE on many fundamental Christian doctrines?

I would also use this opportunity to remind you for the upteenth time that those who argue against tithing as it is preached today are merely arguing a false doctrine that is being used to rip off believers today cause they are being fraudulently mis-led into believing it is a christian requirement.

You're just a quintessential opportunist! Please Kun, quote me ANYWHERE or at ANY LINE were ANY of my arguments are favouring your version of 'false doctrine'? Where you tried to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader with your mantra of 'requirement' or 'fraudulent', have I not made my case clear enough that I do not argue for neither of such ideas? So,  what are you claiming "opportunity" to "remind" me about what - as if I ever made reference to such cacophony?

If most preachers were honest enough to preach the truth about mandatory tithing'[/b]s irrelevance to christians and only preach it as optional, trust me nobody would be up in arms against it.

Now, now, now. . . Kun. Again, I have nowhere argued on the basis of 'mandatory tithing'. If you were careful enough to read my first input here, you would see indeed that I discouraged any form of "coercion" by saying - "a believer should choose what and how they want to give [b]as long as doing so does not bother on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory')." If this is all an argument against 'mandatory tithing' (which I have never favoured anywhere), then what would I need to have responded to the fallacies bantered here and there by those who wish to quench their thirst in fighting tithers in the church?

No, Kun - enlighten yourself to read issues carefully. Since I did not make reference to mandatory tithing (other than discouraging it), why do you think it needs be mentioned in your "opportunity to remind"?!?


Now, this hghlighted part of your comments -

If most preachers were honest enough to preach the truth about mandatory tithing's irrelevance to christians and only preach it as optional, trust me nobody would be up in arms against it

That is the [size=16pt]BIGGEST ANTI-TITHING LIE[/size] often recycled around the globe! Antitithers act as if NOBODY has been talking about VOLUNTARY tithing; and where we even make the effort to spell it out in simple terms that we are talking about voluntary expressions of giving, many anti-tithers jump into their bandwagon and act like blind illiterates who no longer read!

You just need to look a little more closely and you will find myriads of anti-tithers who want to stop everyone from tithing in church - including VOLUNTARY expressions of tithing. Yet, ask a little more closely about these anti-tithers personal commitment to Christ and you will find many of them cannot do more than mere cheap talk, and in some cases some of them are not even participating in any identified local church!! They go on a trail hunting other Christians on how not to give, yet they have absolutely nothing to show of how much more they can give beyond what the saints in the Old Testament gave.

Ptolomeus:

It would be important that if you quote Malachi, you should read it sometime ,
I do not river such situations, to cause me grief.

I don't see you quoting Malachi yourself, let alone reading it. I'm sorry if my rejoinders were (mis)read as causing grief - that was never intended on m part. I just thought that the record be set straight and not left confused in the manner you put it.

wordtalk:

I don't see you quoting Malachi yourself, let alone reading it. I'm sorry if my rejoinders were (mis)read as causing grief - that was never intended on m part. I just thought that the record be set straight and not left confused in the manner you put it.

You are not argued, and when you do it wrongly cites passages.
To quote the Bible is read first.
I said "indefensible."
You do not write much , think a little more.
Receive my greetings