@coogar,

You said: "but the tither already eats from the tithe in the modern era. when the tithes are collected to build huge edifices with the modern hi-tech gadgets, do you not benefit from those as a member of the congregation? buses to travel from point a to b. an enabling atmosphere to pray, adequate security of lives and properties, alternate power when nepa/phcn strike, etc. are those not the things the tithes have done that every member of the congregation enjoys? who do you think pay for the renting of the venue of the church, the plastic chairs, the people who fix the place every service? where do you think those people are paid from? the pastor's inheritance from his dad or from the federal ministry of works and housing?"

During the Old Covenant, various offerings (including the tithe) were used to take care of the Jewish temple and those who worked in the temple -- yet none of this was considered to be "eating from the tithe." Under the Old Covenant, "eating from the tithe" had a LITERAL meaning. In other words, you were expected to literally EAT AND/OR DRINK your tithe.

Since "eating from the tithe" has a literal meaning in Scripture -- then why all of a sudden (with NO Biblical explanation) do you say that "eating from the tithe" in the New Covenant has a METAPHORICAL meaning? How did you LEAP to the personalized interpretation that someone is "eating from the tithe" by paying for the upkeep of a church-building, its furniture, etc? Your metaphorical re-interpretation of "eating from the tithe" is foreign to Scripture. You are eisegeting Scripture and re-interpreting the command to "eat from the tithe" so that it fits your false tradition.

Instead of injecting metaphorical meanings into Scriptures that are literal, why not just be HONEST and admit that you are NOT tithing according to the way GOD COMMANDED IN SCRIPTURE? It is so clear to everyone who understands Biblical tithing that none of you who so-called "tithe" are "eating from the tithe" as God commanded. Yet rather than admit that you are not tithing according to Scripture, you would rather ADD to God's Word by injecting your own ideas into passages that have a LITERAL meaning. Do you know what the Scriptures say about adding to God's Word? And don't you know that God's Word is not subject to any PRIVATE INTERPRETATION (2 Peter 1:20)?

Your personalized re-interpretation of "eating from the tithe" cannot be found ANYWHERE in the New Testament. The apostles did not teach that by paying for the upkeep of buildings & chairs that you are "eating from the tithe," so where did you get that unbiblical idea from? A so-called "pastor" right? What is his name? Because I know that Jesus nor the Holy Spirit gave you that interpretation.

Enigma said: "tithing" has been "disannulled" (abolished) along with the Levitical priesthood on which it was based: both have been replaced by the bringing in of a better hope (which makes things perfect) and by which we draw nigh unto God."

Coogar, then you said: "white elephant lie. matthew 23:23 says you are lying."

Enigma didn't lie. What he stated is a basic Biblical truth. The Old Covenant (which would include its tithing laws) was abolished at the Cross, and the New Covenant was instituted. The author of Hebrews went to GREAT LENGTHS to explain all of this to Believers who drifted away from the New Covenant, and went back to the Old Covenant pattern. The author of Hebrew flat-out stated that God rendered the Old Covenant OBSOLETE. The term obsolete means "no longer in use, not current, out of date, discarded, no longer active, out of practice." The Old Covenant (which would include tithing, circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, etc) have been DISCARDED by God.

In the book of Galatians, we see that false teachers infiltrated Christian fellowships, bewitched the saints with false teachings, and brought them back under the Law of Moses (specifically the law of circumcision). Paul was very offended and angry by this, because he understood that the Old Covenant (ALL OF IT) had been ABOLISHED -- and by putting Christians back under Old Covenant laws, they were also under the curses of the law (for not keeping ALL of it properly - see Deuteronomy 28:15-68 for a long list of the curses). In their attempt to practice the works of the law -- they drifted away from Jesus Christ and the New Covenant, which is based on FAITH.

As for Matthew 23:23 it says "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: judgment and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone."

You ignore a few things about this passage: 1) The first thing is that this event took place during the OLD COVENANT while the tithing laws were still in effect. The scribes and Pharisees were suppose to tithe because the Old Covenant was still in place. 2) Jesus was NOT commanding NEW COVENANT CHRISTIANS to tithe. He was rebuking the scribes and Pharisees for tithing even the HERBS IN THEIR GARDEN, yet neglecting MORE IMPORTANT matters about judging righteously, showing people mercy, and having faith in God. How could you overlook the principle of what Christ was saying, and misuse the very same passage to teach an idea that is not there?

You said: "see, i don't have any problem if you decide not to tithe(it's your prerogative). . . . .but don't discourage the people who tithe with your heresy."

You seem not to understand the issue at hand. People like myself are not "deciding not to tithe." The issue is that we studied God's Word about GIVING, and it clearly shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP THE TITHING LAWS TODAY, because they were abolished at the Cross. The Old Covenant is gone -- ALL of it (including the tithing laws). It has passed away. It no longer exists. We are in the New Covenant today. Our giving is Spirit-led from a cheerful heart. The tithing laws are inferior to Spirit-led giving. The needs of God's people can NEVER be met by today's 10% "tithing" tradition. Our needs will only be met when we are led by the Spirit to sacrifice all that we have for one another. That is what the first Christians did in Acts 2. They did not try to pay tithes (they knew better). They gave like Jesus did on the Cross -- they gave all that they had. They were a living sacrifice (Romans 12:2). Just like the blood of Jesus EXCELS the blood of bulls & rams -- Spirit-led giving EXCELS Old Covenant tithing laws. A church that gives 10% of their income under an Old Covenant pattern will not be as FRUITFUL as a Church that gives by the Spirit.

The teaching that God wants Christians to "tithe" today is a HERESY. If Paul the apostle were here today, he would speak against it. And his letter to the Galatians actually does speak against it. So does the book of Hebrews.

The Old Covenant is GONE -- so anyone who tells you that "God wants you to tithe" is lying, or at the very least deceived and confused themselves. This is why you must study the Scriptures so that you know the truth and are not deceived by any man. I can see that at the moment, you hold VERY TIGHTLY to this false tradition called "tithing." But I'm confident that when you finally see/hear the truth about this issue, you will let go of the LIE and do what the New Testament ACTUALLY says "You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don’t give reluctantly or in response to pressure. “For God loves a person who gives cheerfully.” And God will generously provide all you need. Then you will always have everything you need and plenty left over to share with others." (2 Corinthians 9:6-

All of these people who claim to be "tithing" today are NOT. They are practicing a false tradition that has the word "tithing" slapped on it.

According to the SCRIPTURES:

1) The tithing laws that God gave to ISRAEL (not the CHURCH), were a part of the Old Covenant -- and the Old Covenant does not exist anymore. It is no longer active or in use. When Jesus died on the cross and resurrected on the 3rd day, He abolished the Old Covenant and established the NEW COVENANT. In the New Covenant, we are personally led by the Spirit of God in our giving (those who are led by the Spirit of God are the SONS OF GOD), and we give from a cheerful heart. People who claim to be "tithing" are trying to obey an Old Covenant law that does not exist anymore. And they are disobeying the New Covenant principle of Spirit-led giving, which was demonstrated by the first Christians in Acts 2.

2) According to the Old Covenant, the tithe had to be produce or agriculture (meat, grain, oil, wine, fruit, etc). Not monetary income. People who claim to be "tithing" today do not tithe produce or agriculture. They give money.

3) The tithe had to be brought to the Jewish temple, to a Levitical priest. Yet today, the Jewish temple no longer exists (around 70 A.D. God used the Romans to destroy the Jewish temple because it was no longer useful or needed). In the New Covenant born-again Believers are the Temple of God.  

The Levitical priesthood does not exist anymore either. When Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, He abolished the Levitical priesthood, and established a NEW priesthood (He is the Eternal High Priest, and the entire body of Christ is a royal priesthood). People who claim to be "tithing" today cannot bring their tithe to the Jewish temple, to a Levitical priest. It is impossible for them to do so, because the Jewish temple & the Levitical priesthood do not exist anymore. Even unsaved Jews have enough Biblical knowledge to understand that it is impossible to obey the Old Covenant tithing laws today. Yet Christians (who are suppose to be MORE spiritually-enlightened than unsaved Jews) are trying to obey a law that is impossible to keep today. What is wrong with that picture? Do unsaved Jews have a better understanding of the Old Covenant than born-again Christians?

4) The laws of the Old Covenant were meant to be obeyed as a SINGLE UNIT or contract. This means that the Old Covenant tithing laws were meant to be obeyed ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OTHER OLD COVENANT LAWS. In the eyes of God and Israel, you were not allowed to pick and choose which laws you would obey from the Old Covenant. You were expected to obey ALL of the Old Covenant commandments, and if you broke ONE LAW -- you were guilty of breaking the ENTIRE COVENANT. This is why James 2:10 says "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."

Since the Old Covenant laws were meant to be obeyed as a SINGLE UNIT or contract, if you put yourself under ONE Old Covenant law -- you are indebted to keep ALL OF IT. This is why Galatians 5:3 says "And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." You cannot obey the bits and pieces about tithing, and combine those bits and pieces with the NEW COVENANT, and then ignore the rest of the Old Covenant laws. That is what I call "buffet style Old Covenant Churchianity." If you are going to put yourself under ONE POINT of the Old Covenant, then you are indebted to obey ALL of it. But guess what? You cannot even obey one point of the Old Covenant because it doesn't even exist anymore. God abolished the old and established the new. Why not give according to the New Covenant where God is moving today? Who prefers old wine over new wine, and thinks that old wine tastes better than new wine?

Those of you who are trying to obey the Old Covenant tithing laws keep in mind: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” If you try to obey ONE POINT (for example tithing) from the book of the law (the Old Covenant), then you are indebted to keep ALL of it. Yet if you do not continue in ALL of it PROPERLY, you receive a curse (see Deuteronomy 28:15-68 which explains all of the curses for breaking the Old Covenant). Why put yourself back under an ABOLISHED law, and receive a curse for not continuing in all of it? Why not just let go of the abolished laws with their curses and obey the New Covenant where God's grace and blessings are? The only reason I can think of why a born-again Christian would put themselves back under an Old Covenant law and under a curse (for not obeying ALL of it properly), is that they have been bewitched by a false teacher (Galatians 3:1).

Okay. . . . MRC asked "Are Women More Virtuous Than Men?" & rather than answer his question (in light of the text he provided) some nonChristians totally side-stepped his question and went WAY OFF topic onto a tangent. What is wrong with you guys? Seriously. . . .

Why does almost every thread posted by a Christian turn into a debate about "Did Jesus REALLY exist?" "God doesn't exist!" "Christians are evil!" What in the name of neptune does that have to do with the topic of the thread? Nothing at all. If people want to debate the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc - then create another thread, rather than hijack an unrelated thread and steer the discussion way off topic onto a tangent. Aren't there already threads about the existence of God/Jesus, the resurrection, "Christians are evil", etc? Why hijack unrelated threads and turn it into debates that have already been posted? Do people really have that BIG of a chip in the shoulder against religion (Christianity in particular) that they cannot respond to the topic of the thread?

Look, criticism of religion is justified and healthy, and I don't mind a good debate. But this constant hijacking of Christian threads and going into a tangent is some type of obsessive compulsive disorder. What if one day I decide to post a thread about the Scripture-twisting of "Touch Not God's Anointed"? I bet you 5 million dollars that some nonChristians will flock to the thread trying to debate the existence of God and so on. Totally off topic, and they can't help themselves because they have a chip in the shoulder the size of Jupiter. I can see it, and I know that many others can see it too. The comments on this thread make it plain as day.

MRC, I know that I just ranted, but I had to say something about all of these off-the-wall comments. Oh and by the way, no - women are not more virtuous than men, not even considering the passage you posted. Implying that is like a Christianized form of radical feminism@the notion that women are superior to men. They're not.

About 90 people lost their lives because of a psychopath, and all the media can think of is "How can we use this tragic event to further demonize and criminalize Christians as terrorists?" As if this man's actions had anything to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ, or somehow reflect the mindset and lifestyle of the average professing Christian. Ridiculous.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=325765

Churchianity is more emotion-based@the music, the sermons, the "praise-dancing," etc. This appeals more so to women than men, because women tend to be more emotional, emotionally-sensitive, and emotionally-expressive. Men are less emotionally-expressive and more active. They don't want to sit in a pew for hours under the "submission" of some pulpiteer who has all the women hypnotized. Men have less tolerance for bankrupt-spirituality and hyper-emotional fluff. They would rather stay home and watch sports on TV than waste time sitting through a monotonous church service that caters to women. Real men don't want to attend a church service where the pastor is bisexual, the choir director is a flaming h0m0s3xual man, there are brash "butch" Juanita Bynum-type female preachers. Plus all of the offerings. Why pay to listen to lies, errors, and teachings that even the leaders aren't obeying? Men would rather just stay home and watch a game on TV for free. No deception and religious pimpery is involved.

This is silly. Are you seriously asking if Hitler was a Christian (i.e. follower of Christ)? Of course not. This is common sense. . . . really. That's like asking if former president Bush is a Christian. The answer should be so obvious.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations (1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953) contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941: "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together,  The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity,  Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death,  When understanding of the universe has become widespread,  Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity,  Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity,  And that's why someday its structure will collapse,  , the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little,  Christianity the liar,  We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night: "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

13th December, 1941, midnight: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery,  ,  When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday: "Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself,  Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner: "There is something very unhealthy about Christianity" (p 339)

Like most politicians, Hitler ascribed to Christianity publicly, for the sake of gaining acceptance from the people. It's no different than Barack Obama claiming to be a Christian, when much of what he actually believes, says, and does goes directly against the teachings of Jesus Christ. A follower of Christ? Not.

"For good people to do evil things. . . ."? That's a contradictory statement. If someone is doing evil things, then they're obviously not good.

Calling religion the root of all evil is a very dogmatic atheistic statement. Not to mention it's untrue. The root of all evil is a wicked heart, hence the presence of evil both within and outside of religion.

Scientific studies have not proven that the less religious a society is, the less crime there is. And you're probably referring to these articles that point out a few small nations with a high percentage of atheists or secular humanists, that also have a lower rate of crime. I guess the assertion is that atheism is more moral than theism and that it leads to health, wealth, morality, less crime etc. Yet these studies didn't prove that cause and effect connection. It requires a great leap to an unsupported conclusion. These writings eliminate the vast majority of the world’s atheists and then focus on atheists in small, prosperous, highly educated, socially stable and secure nations. It failed to consider and evaluate other factors that have nothing to do with religion.

*yawns@Mithra* Another copycat theory?

Mithraic scholars do not support or see any evidence for the theory that the Virgin Birth of Christ was borrowed from Mithraism.

Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave. He was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind.

Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up. (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)

The Iranian Mithra didn't have a "born out of rock" story; his conception was attributed to an incestuous relationship between Ahura-Mazda and his mother, or to the plain doings of an ordinary mortal woman, but there is no virgin conception/birth story to speak of. [Cum.MM, 16]

A lot of unfounded claims about Mithra circulate around the internet, but no sources are ever given to support these claims. Modern websites quote each other (i.e. circular referencing), which is hardly evidence.

There is much misinformation here. . . .

FICTION: "Contrary to popular belief, Jesus never proclaimed himself the "Son of God", and in fact was only seen as a regular mortal until the Council of Nicea in 325, where the Christian Emperor Constantine proclaimed that Jesus was indeed Divine."

One of the MANY urban legends about Constantine is that he was a Trinitarian Believer in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that he influenced the theological discussion at the Nicene Council.

I don't understand how anyone can study about the life of Constantine (based on actual written correspondence and historical documentation from that time period), and come to the conclusion that he was a Trinitarian, or that he believed in the Divinity of Christ. That is a bold-faced lie.

FACT: Constantine was NOT a Trinitarian. He did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, nor did he wield any religious influence over the Nicene council. Constantine was an ARIAN (i.e. a believer in the heresy of Arianism, which taught that Christ was NOT Divine, Christ did not exist eternally with the Father, and that He was created by the Father just before His incarnation). Arianism comes from a false bishop named Arius.

Constantine became an Arian through his religious adviser Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius in turn, became an Arian through Arius, because they were close friends.

Arius kept getting kicked out of Christian churches in the Roman empire, because they believed in the Divinity of Christ, and he taught an opposing heresy. Many Christian churches saw Arius as an antichrist (per 1 John 2:22-23, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7), so they rightly excommunicated him. Arius wrote Eusebius letters about his excommunications, so Eusebius told Constantine about the matter. Constantine saw this as a disruption in his empire among the Christians, so he called a council in order to let them discuss the Divinity of Christ and squash the issue. Constantine himself was not involved in the discussion at all, he didn't care about the theological conflict. He just wanted peace in his empire.

Constantine's son Constantius II was an Arian, and his daughter Constantia was an Arian-sympathizer. Constantius actually had one a Trinitarian named Athanasius (who debated in favor of the Divinity of Christ at the Nicene Council) dragged out of a fellowship meeting and temporarily banished from the Roman empire.

The information that I have shared can be verified by historical documentation and early Christian writings. With so much accurate information available about Constantine and the Nicene Council, I really don't understand why there are so many myths and urban legends about Constantine. It's actually funny that his religious views were the exact opposite of what many nonChristians claim (that he was a Trinitarian Deity of Christ promoter) lol.

Hello Enigma,

I agree. And in my opinion, calling Jesus the "Lover of your soul" is more appropriate than merely calling Him your "lover." The former is Biblical, but the latter sounds romanticized and irreverent.

People who say "Jesus is my Lover" may have good intentions, but I don't think it's wise to refer to Jesus as one's "lover." It kinda makes me cringe inside, just like when I hear heavily-churched single Black females saying "Jesus is my Husband!"

The dictionary defines a lover as "1. a person who is in love with another. 2. a person who has a intimate or romantic relationship with another.
3. a person with whom one conducts an extramarital intimate affair."

As we can see, the word "lover" has a strong s3xua1/romantic connotation to it, and this is the sense in which most people today use and understand this term. So when you (as a Christian man or woman) stand up and say "Jesus is my Lover!" you are making yourself look crazy (or at least questionable and misguided) and you WILL be misunderstood - but not because non-Christians cannot comprehend this so-called "deep spiritual saying" that Jesus is your "Lover" -- but because you applied a role with a strong s3xua1/romantic connotation to Jesus. Of course, non-Christians are going to make all types of blunt statements about why you're calling Jesus your Lover, and you cannot frame their responses as "persecution" - because you used a poor choice of words.

I believe that Paul (the apostle) said something to the effect that when we are living within a certain culture, we must consider their mindset and way of life in order to witness to them effectively. So if the word "lover" has a strong s3xua1/romantic connotation to it within a certain culture, then you definitely don't want to run around saying that Jesus is your Lover. In my opinion, that eroticizes Jesus and is an irreverent way to speak of Him. Not to mention it sounds a bit effeminate for a man to call another Man (Jesus) their lover. Sorry, it just doesn't sound right.

I have the same problem with heavily-churched single Black females who say that Jesus is their Husband. Well, metaphorically speaking, the Scriptures *DO* refer to the church (collectively/corporately) as a Bride, and say that Jesus is our Bridegroom/Husband -- but this metaphor is only in a collective/corporate sense. However, Jesus being the Bridegroom of the Church as a WHOLE doesn't translate into Jesus being your personal husband, on an individual level. If you (as a single Christian woman) call Jesus your "husband" - then you should call Him that because the Scriptures assign that role to Him. But don't call Jesus your "husband" merely because you are lonely, sad, and secretly longing for a man -- so you hide your loneliness and desire for a man behind religious churchy sayings about Jesus being your husband. Because I'm afraid that's what most heavily-churched single Black females are doing when they say that.

If you're a lonely single black female, it's okay to want a man lol God created women to be a man's helpmate/wife. Even the Bible says that it is not good for man to be alone. . . so then God made Eve. It was EVE (not Jesus) who God gave to Adam as his LOVER. And it was ADAM (not Jesus) who God gave to Eve as her HUSBAND. So no, Jesus is not your husband and He's not your Lover, so please stop romanticizing Him. In John 8:58 He called himself the Great I AM. In John 10, He called himself the Good Shepherd/Pastor. Peter called him the Chief Shepherd and the Bishop/Overseer of my soul. In Revelations, He called Himself the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. He is Lord. He is not your lover, husband, or homeboy. Show him due reverence.

We can study about Old Covenant tithing to gain knowledge, but we cannot PRACTICE it because it doesn't even exist anymore.

If you are a born-again Christian, then you are under the NEW COVENANT. And in the New Covenant, we give 1) by faith 2) from a cheerful heart 3) as led by the Holy Spirit. This new way of giving does not flow out of the Old Covenant. It flows out of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Spirit-led giving shows that you are a son of God, because "those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God." Are you led by the Spirit of God? Or are you led by the Old Covenant?

Spirit-led giving glorifies Jesus Christ, because it is directed by His Spirit (who testifies of Jesus & glorifies Him).

Spirit-led giving is SUPERIOR to Old Covenant tithing, just as Christ is superior to Moses, and the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant. Spirit-led giving out of faith, love, and a cheerful heart is SUPERIOR to giving out of compulsion (i.e. tithing).

Spirit-led giving gives us the liberty and freedom to sacrifice as much as we cheerfully desire. This includes the freedom to sell everything that we have and distribute the profits among one another, as anyone has need (like the early Christians did in the book of Acts). Through this sacrificial new way of giving - God can pour out an abundance among His people so that there is equality, and no one lacks or has need.

The Tithing Scam on the other hand TAKES AWAY your liberty and freedom to sacrifice as much as you cheerfully desire. It restricts you and limits you to 10%, which may not be enough for your congregation's needs. God cannot pour out an abundance when there is no freedom in the Spirit to give as much as He leads you to. God knows how much the congregation needs, and He can meet these needs ONLY if there is liberty in the Spirit for Him to lead us in our giving. The Tithing Scam takes away liberty in the Spirit. It comes against God's desire to freely and personally lead you in your giving. It comes against the New Covenant principle of sacrifice (laying down all that you have for a fellow Christian or even an enemy). When there is no freedom to be Spirit-led in your giving - God cannot pour out an abundance and bring equality in a congregation so that no one lacks. But instead, there will be dramatic inequalities - such as a few members being very rich and comfortable, while the rest of the congregation struggles to make ends meet. This type of inequality does not glorify Christ or show that Christians love one another. It does not bear witness of the Gospel. It does not bear witness of Heaven. It looks just like the world where dramatic inequalities exist between the "haves" and the "have nots."

First of all, people who think that they are "tithing" today actually are NOT, because the Old Covenant does not even exist anymore.

When Jesus died on the Cross and rose on the 3rd day, He discarded the Old Covenant and established the NEW COVENANT. The Old Covenant [including its tithing laws] does not exist anymore. Born-again Christians are under the NEW COVENANT.

The book of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant is OBSOLETE. The word "obsolete" means "no longer in use, discarded, out-moded, out of date, out of practice, not current, worn out, or no longer active." The Old Covenant [ALL of it] is gone. God moved on from that covenant about 2,000 years ago - and today He is operating in the New Covenant, which is based on grace, faith, love, and being Spirit-led (which requires being born-again and having a personal relationship with Him). People who think that they are "tithing" need to come out of the old, and come into the NEW.

People who think that they are "tithing" today are actually obeying a false tradition, which I call "The Tithing Scam." Basically, the Tithing Scam says that "God wants you to bring 10% of your money to a church-building, ministry, or religious leader. And if you do, He will bless you. But if you do not, God will curse you." This teaching is not from Christ and the apostles. It is a man-made teaching hiding behind a form of godliness.

The Tithing Scam hides behind Scripture-twisting and all types of christianese sayings about giving and prosperity. Yet it is a false tradition, and Jesus hates false traditions no matter how much Scripture and Christianese sayings are twisted around them. Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6), and if you are born-again you will love the truth and strive to obey the truth. Obeying the truth is what makes you a disciple of Jesus and sets you free from sin. Obeying false traditions keep you in bondage to sin and error. It prevents the Word of God from fully impacting your heart, mind, and even your family (if you are married and/or have children). There are many negative consequences to obeying a false tradition. I cannot name them all here.

Below, I will show a few differences between Old Covenant tithing and the Tithing Scam. . . .

Old Covenant Tithing - commanded about 23-29%. The Tithing Scam - commands 10%.

Old Covenant Tithing - only commanded upon Israelites involved in agriculture [excluding the POOR] and the Levitical priests. The Tithing Scam - commanded upon everyone, including the poor.

Old Covenant Tithing - the Israelites who were able to tithe had to tithe PRODUCE [i.e., meat, grain, oil, wine, etc]. Sometimes they were commanded to EAT their tithe. The Tithing Scam - commands people to give MONEY, never produce, and of course they are never commanded to eat their own tithe.

Old Covenant Tithing - tithes had to be brought to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, to a Levitical priest only. The Tithing Scam - people are commanded to bring their money to a church-building [church-buildings are NOT Jewish temples lol] or pay it online to some type of religious leader [who is NOT a Levitical priest] or religious organization.

Old Covenant Tithing - the Israelites who were able to tithe did not tithe often - they were only commanded to tithe a few times per year, and on an annual cycle. There were about 2-3 different tithes, each for different purposes (to support the poor, to store up produce for festivals, and to support the Levitical priests who worked in the temple). The Tithing Scam - commands people to tithe every month.

Old Covenant Tithing - originated from God, to provide for His people (especially the poor). The Tithing Scam - originated from religious leaders around the 4th century, to provide for themselves [on the backs of the poor and unsuspecting people].

Old Covenant Tithing - was clearly practiced in Scripture [before the Crucifixion]. The Tithing Scam - was not practiced anywhere in the Bible. This concept was unknown and absent among the early Christians of the New Testament. The Tithing Scam didn't exist until the apostles and their students died off, and a new breed of "church leadership" jumped behind the steering wheel of the church and took over. The seeds of deception were planted centuries ago, and here we are today with people posting forums about "How To Reap The Full Benefits of Tithing." Satan is overjoyed that some of God's people are so captivated by this false tradition, yet the Spirit of God is grieved and He is opening people's eyes to this financial fraud which pretends to be "Biblical Tithing."

If you think that you are "tithing" - you are not. You are obeying a false tradition, twisting Scripture to support it, and ultimately disobeying Jesus. You don't have to take my word for it. "Test all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Pray and do your own research on Biblical tithing and New Covenant giving.