₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
There is nothing to show you as you doidn't answer any of the questions and i do not consider any of the gibberish you wrote as answers. besides you already listed your so called answers about three posts ago so why are you asking me to repost them again. or is this one of your usual tricks of confusing issues?

Don't you see the dunce you are? So, I already listed my answers about three posts ago, and you had the nerve to be so dubious that I didn't answer ALL your questions on Hebrews 7:18? You didn't surprise me - and I still keep my fingers crossed for the day you will truly know how to be honest.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
You should know me better than that by now i would NEVR run away from any debate as i am 110% certain of my position. And i insist that you have refused to answer any of my questions on hebrew 7 rather you write utter rubbish that does not address the issue being asked and you claim you have answered it. if i was your lecturer i would certainly give you very big F for your pathetic and dubious attempts to answer simple and straight forward questions.

Please save this cowardise - just simply show where I refused to answer ALL your questions on Hebrews 7, regardless the answers I proffered. Until you do so, your noise is not effective enough to repair your duplicity. I await, sir.

KunleOshob:
As usual you exhibit a very high level of intellectual deficeincy here albeit dishonestly. how does any of the gibberish you wrote here clearly explains why the commandment to tithe was described as weak and extremely very useless

You have turned from utililizing the last dregs of your reasoning to becoming a tout. Well done - just keep making a case for your illiteracy, and I shall serve you well enough. I warned you many times: if you want to discuss, do so. If you cannot endure discussing until the dark side of you comes to the fore, be my guest and I shall bleach the rascality of your camp.

I made the observation that you're simply dubious, and you only fell for it and confirmed that is the case with you. Since you're too shallow and cannot consult simple commentaries to help you see what is being referred to in Hebrews 7:18, I shall help you soonest. Guess what - even your own anti-tithing camp that you've been selectively re-quoting endlessly are not making the same private interpretation you're giving to that verse - that being the case, it seems you're floating forever on boat that leads nowhere. Stay tuned, I'll post a few of such commentaries soon.

KunleOshob:
Your usual trick of using remotely related scripture to prove the illogical simply wouldn't do for me,

It won't do for you because I'm not given to your cheap design of reading your duplicity into Hebrews 7. It is because you can't read that is why you call it a 'trick'.

KunleOshob:
i guess you are used to debating with people who don't read and understand the scriptures very well or are to lazy to read annd appreciate scriptures in the context it was written.

Oh, I see you're describing yourself in bold. Happy to notice. Just stay tuned - and you'll see in a moment that you're in a class of your own utility grade drama.

KunleOshob:
Evidently you have been dealing too much with fellow bible illiterates and you assume evry body as that same level of poor understanding that you posses. And to top it all you are very dis-honst even with your poverty of mind.

Who's been dishonest other than you, Kunle? Why is it difficult for you to show where I had "dodged ALL the questions you posed on Hebrews 7"? Now, I can be rest assured that - "If you cannot show them, you really have not changed from being such a dubious fellow". Not surprising, though: dubious folks often make allegations that they can't prove. Well done again for confirming the case with you.

So, just stay tuned and let me help you with some quotes on Hebrews 7:18, yeah? Run if you can't stand to be educated - it won't surprise me.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
I really don't know what to make of you aside from the fact that you have routinely dodged all the questions i posed to you on Hebrews 7, you turn around and start asking me baseless irrelevant questions with the aim of trying to divert attention from the issue at stake, that is really not very intelligent and i know it is a tactic which you consistently use when the fallacies in your poorly constrieved hallucinations are clearly pointed out.

Kunle, honesty is not one of your virtues. Please save the whimpering and show where I have dodged ALL the questions you posed on Hebrews 7. If you cannot show them, you really have not changed from being such a dubious fellow.

KunleOshob:
The bible is crystal clear in hebrews 7 and i highlighted the salient issues which makes it clear, instead of you to eat humble pie and accept that you have been wrong all along, you come up with "seemingly" related issues (like reason it was described as weak) and try to make a big deal out of it even though it is clear that the bible described it as weak and useless[very useless] WHAT HAS THE REASON GOT TO DO WITH IT

I did two things:

    (a) showed what was "weak"

    (b) showed why it was described as "weak"

If you're in doubt, I could point you to the commentaries that even anti-tithers have made about Hebrews 7:18. Guess what? They are saying the same thing as I demonstrated on that verse. Your problem is to make lazy statements because you're fond of quoting recycled mantra; and when asked how that could be so, you come back whimpering like you deserted school in middle age.

KunleOshob:
Miss know all why don't you tell us the reason in one single sentence instead of your favourite way of using remotely related scripture to twist the meaning of the scripture and writing epistles whilst saying nothing concrete.

Mister, this is one time too many that I have to repeat myself to oblige your boredom - I have ALREADY given you the answer to that question, and REPEATED myself over and over again on that same issue:

       (1) here

       (2) here

       (3) [url=http://]here[/url]

       (4) and here yet again!

Excerpts:

[list][li]You sadly have no clue - for the Hebrews 7:11 and 18 that you worry about, I've already discussed what exactly was "weak" and why it was so - those verses did not teach that "tithes" are weak and useless, unless you can show how God ever gave tithes to justify anybody![/li]
.
.
[li]The "weakness" is simply highlighted in Romans 8:3, as cited already - its weakness (of 'fault') was not because of the inability of the people, but rather the inability of the Law itself ("what the law could not do".[/li]
.
.
[li]"the 'first covenant' had this basic 'fault' (in that it could not condemn sin in the flesh), how then could it justify anybody at all"[/li]
[/list]

I bet you will come back again repeating the same question and confirming you're intellectually challenged and have difficulty in comprehending simple statements. Please prove that is the case with you.

KunleOshob:
As per the staement you made here: This is what Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21 > "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation".[/i]peter was striictly refering to prophecies in scripture which are normally not very clear and needs to be interpreted and NOT regular scriptures that was written for the clear understanding of those reading them.

I see. In other words, Peter was [i]encouraging your private interpretation that has been proven many times to be so vacant that even you have become embarrassed by them? And what did Proverbs 30:6 tell you? It's almost prophetic that I would not be surprised you would make these comments, especially because you still have demonstrated you have no clue and are making up things for your eisegesis as you go along. Well done.

KunleOshob:
I am sure you are learned enough to realize that hebrews 7 was not a prophecy. Agian this is one of the several tricks being used by pastors to confuse the flock when they want to bamboozoo them and force their own views and biases[such as tithes] on the congregation.

Yea, we've seen how many times you force your own prejudices into Hebrews 7 - and when asked simple questions about your own assertions, you predictably whimper like the clueless chap you've always been. Cherio.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3861644#msg3861644 date=1242216736]
Please show us what exactly is the 'weakness' in Hebrews 7:18 - show it from the Bible, and that will be sufficient.[/quote][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=263218.msg3861721#msg3861721 date=1242217963]
@Pilgrim.1
My dear it is not my duty to query the bible for describing it as weak and useless[even though i agree with the bible very much on this[/quote]I hear. In other words, you just can't show the "weakness" in Hebrews 7:18, not so? Hardly surprising. This confirms my observation again that - -

It amazes me that after all your recycling, you never once intelligently address any question - simply because you have no clue.

Thanks for the confirmation. Enjoy.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
My dear it is not my duty to query the bible for describing it as weak and useless[even though i agree with the bible very much on this ]

Lol, I pity you. Did I query the Bible, or rather asked you a simple question? I'm not surprised that you reason this way, no wonder you are so boringly repetitious and vacantly assertive. You played this lazy game earlier by asserting that the Levites were not allowed to own property: when asked to consider verses that show how wrong you were, you returned with such otiose excuses. Sample:

'As per your little assignment maybe you have to figure it out yourself,
my bible used the word permanent property so maybe the levites
had access to property but they didn'y have permanent possesion of it.'

Well done.

KunleOshob:
the bottom line is the bible as condenmed the commandment. the reasons why they are descibed as weak and useless are not the issue, i am not aware that God as to give us a reason to make or discard commandments/laws.

If anything in that chapter is not the issue, why are you even quoting from it and making it an issue? That chapter (Hebrews 7) does not make vacant assertions to leave us scratching our heads with such lazy comments as in yours - that is why when you check the cross-references you will find answers. You simply are uninformed, or rather are just too reluctant to discover the holes in your assertions, or you're are just being stubbornly vacant. God gave us the reason for the "weakness", and I've offered that answer.

KunleOshob:
Just accept the anullment of the commandement and stop trying to cut yourseldf away from grace as christ bought you for a price.

Where is it taught that anyone who gives a tithe is cut off from Christ? You're sounding more like a grand manipulator of what you can't defend. Just my observation, and apologies in advance.

KunleOshob:
don't let any man pull you or others who genuinely seek God back with obsolete and manipulated doctrines

Sorry, I'm not in your camp who like to make statements they cannot show from Scripture. Lazy people do that same thing all the time: make selective reading of texts; and when asked simple questions, they turn round and say such and such "are not the issue", after making it the issue themselves! This is why I sometime observed that when we follow the kind of arguments you guys whip up, you immediately abandon your own arguments!

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Anyhow, I knew already that you would hit a brick wall when asked to show simple answers to your assertions. Anybody can come to the Bible, snatch a verse and give it their own interpretation which they cannot defend from the same Bible they quote. Such has been the style you've adopted too many times, particularly in this subject. So, here are just a few clues about how to test your assumptions:

When you make inferences, try and compare verses to see if you inferences can stand exegetical tests. What this means is simple: do not take a verse and give it your own isolated interpretation that bears no reference to what is being discussed within the context of what you quote. This is what Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21 > "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation".

Second, if you quote a verse, follow the precise thoughts expressed there - don't go about making up ideas just because you read words that you can use to pepper your prejudices. Such an attitude is what Proverbs 30:6 warns against - "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." People do this a lot: they tend to "add" their own ideas into a verse when they cannot show what that verse means within the context of what is being quoted.

Third, it is not enough to just quote "what" Scripture says; you should take one step further to show "how" you arrived at your inference. Again, the Lord Jesus brought these two points together in Luke 10:26 -  "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

For this reason, I asked you to show from Scripture what exactly is meant by the "weakness" of the commandment in Hebrews 7:18. Predictably, you could not show this from Scripture and rather complaining about how people are abusing verses from the Bible. For your enlightenment, fraudsters have abused and keep abusing so many commandments in the Bible - why not make the same inference that those other commandments have been abolished simply because of such abuses? You know it is because you have no clue about what that verse is about, that is why you predictably are throwing words carelessly about in the air.

I'll recommend this to help you (if you would take it): go do a simple study on Hebrews 7:18 - consult study tools and scholarly resources on that verse. Find for us how many such scholars are saying the same thing you have said about that verse and let's take it from there. Second, find out how many scholars are linking that verse to references such as Hebrews 8:7 and Romans 8:3. You can start with this one -

      http://bible.cc/hebrews/7-18.htm

There you will read several versions of Hebrews 7:18 on the left; and then you will see the cross references on the right, including Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 7:11 which I already discussed. The beauty of this is that you showed no cross reference to demonstrate how you arrived at your interpolation.

Please help yourself - it may serve you and your generation beyond the present to a healthy way of understanding God's counsels.

Shalom.

KunleOshob:
Isn't the weakness very glaring today? is tithes not being used to de-fraud millions of christians all over the world today even as we speaktype.

Is that what the Bible says about the commandment in Hebrews verse 7:18? You're typically looking outside the Bible and interpolating your mindset into that verse. Please look again and let us know what exactly the Bible says is the weakness of the commandment in that verse, thank you.

KunleOshob:
The weakness of it is that it is very open to abuse/misinterpretation and the real purpose of it as been discarded for selfish reasons.

Again, your mindset at work. There's not a single verse in Hebrews 7 that teaches what you're assuming. Did the Bible say that the weakness of the commandment in verse 18 is because it is "very open to abuse/misinterpretation"? Does the Bible define the 'weakness' as "selfish reasons"? What verse teaches you this eisegesis and manipulation?

KunleOshob:
Evidently God must have forseen that tithes would be used to extort his flock hence the reason he anulled the commandment to tithe in hebrews7.

Evidently, that is your own make-belief and that is why God knew that people like you will bring in your own eisegesis into Hebrews 7. Please show us simply and clear what exactly the Bible teaches is the "weakness" in that verse, thank you. If you don't know, stop doodling around with such ideas - read Proverbs 30:6.

Please show us what exactly is the 'weakness' in Hebrews 7:18 - show it from the Bible, and that will be sufficient.


Cheers.

KunleOshob:
@ilgrim.1
As usure talking gibberish and confusing issues the " commandment" under the law as stated in that passaged was clearly the commandement to tithes as clearly stated in verse 5[i] [And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:]
[/i] this commandment was refered to again in verse 18 which says[i] [18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof][/i]

Evidently what is being described as weak and unprofitable is the commandment to tithe under the law and NOT the law in itself as pilgim.1 would like us to believe. My dear i think you should stop confusing issues and using evasive tactics the bible is clear enough on the issue of tithes. And as i have always said my grouse is against the preaching of mandatory tithing which is very rampnat in our churches today. I wonder how as a christian you are able to tolerate the idea that some people can use the word of God to de-fraud other christians and still also defend them, it really beats my imagination. You have admitted that tithing is not compulsary for christians yet you know that most churches preach it as compulsary based on malachi 3:10 yet you attack those of us who are bold enough to speak againt such evil, i really wonder what your motive is.

Kunle, please don't run away with your utility grade scholarship. Just a question: what exactly is the "weakness" of the commandment in verse 18?

@No2Atheism,

No2Atheism:
@pilgrim1

How far with you hope you alright and well. So have you checked those weblinks yet,

Bros, I dey o jare. I've been going through the weblinks in you pointed me to in the other thread and found quite a few interesting thoughts from their authors. You know - I take my time to also check out inferences, and that's the reason I haven't called your attention as yet. Will do so in due course. Shalom and many blessings.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
As usual you failed to anser the clear and specific question i asked which remains: "If in your highly esteemed opinion it is not refering to it, could tell us exactly what law/ commandment in very clear and precise terms that the verse is addressing?"

I didn't fail to answer your question. Rather, after pointing out what Heb. 7:11 was addressing, I went on to discuss it once again in context and in detail , even though I had done so several times already. Then I offered you some questions for reflection to test out your assumptions - which you didn't answer (it's characteristic of the way you "discuss", though). If you had failed to see that, there's no surprise you would fail yet again. Trust me. The simple thing to do is ask, and I'll highlight my answer yet again (not to even mention that this is becoming too monotonous and unhealthily repetitive).

KunleOshob:
Whilst you are at the issue of commandment/ law kindly also tell us which commandment under the law was being refered to in [size=14pt]verse 18[/size] which was described as weak and unprofitable.(KJV)

I already addressed this same cark about Hebrews 7 verse 18 - several times already, Kunle! I wonder that you're the only person in this forum who has not been able to see it! But let me once again oblige you:

[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3856775#msg3856775 date=1242128110]All the same, [size=14pt]in this thread I've tried to demonstrate what exactly is meant in[/size] [size=16pt]Heb. 7:18[/size] [size=14pt]by the weakness of the Law,[/size] which is the very same thing pointed out in Heb. 8:7, and buttressing this with Rom. 8:3.

But let me first [size=14pt]remind you of the gist[/size] of what I earlier discussed -

__________________ __________________

>snip< >snip<


Therefore, if [size=14pt]the 'first covenant' had this basic 'fault' (in that it could not condemn sin in the flesh)[/size], how then could it justify anybody at all?
__________________ __________________[/quote][/list]

Does the above not show that I already addressed [size=14pt]Hebrews 7:18[/size] specifically?

KunleOshob:
ps: kindly make your answer short and precise your long answers always serve to confuse issues and deviated from the crux of the matter.

My answers are objective, and the only reason why I take the time to be detailed is because you guys will never see the answers no matter how many times you recycle the same "questions".

Chrisbenogor:
There you are pilgrim!

Wow! Chrisbenogor! I wondered about you as well. How body? I trust you're doing well. Enjoy.

Hello chukwudi44,

It seems you've done two things simultaneously: asked a question and then answered it yourself.   Anyhow, even though I've answered your question in one way or another in my discussions several times, it's not a problem to address it again.

chukwudi44:
Please I would like you to answer this simple question
Is it compulsory for every christian to donate 10% of their earnings to the church(pastor)?

As far as the concern is about the keyword highlighted in your quote ('compulsory'), my answer has always been the same. Let me go back and quote what I said a while back (in replying to ttalks) -

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=263218.msg3802420#msg3802420 date=1241083916]Coming back to your response, perhaps you need to go back a few pages in another relevant thread and see how REPEATEDLY we've made the point that tithing (or ANY OTHER type of giving) is not a matter of being "obligated". To excuse it as such every single time is to build your argument on a false and very misleading premise. Here is a reminder:

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

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

                           . . . or any other ONOMATOMANIA!![/quote]I think the "COMPULSION" above answers to your question about whether tithing is "compulsory" for every Christian.

Also even in my reply to abose today, I noted that: "In all these, it is not as if Christians are under any Law or obligation or coercion to tithe"; which should help sort this issue out once again.

chukwudi44:
Mind you am not saying it is wrong for someone to freely and willingly give 10%,but simply asking is there any comandment in christianity that recommends compulsory tithing(strictly 10%)?

Neither the OT nor the NT makes tithing a matter of what is "compulsory" or "strictly" 10%. First, informed Jews understood that tithing as taught in its true essence in the Torah did not make it an exactitude of 10%. Second, many anti-tithers debating this issue note that '10%' is not the Jewish tithes, but vary the figure to between 23% and 40%. Basically, the Hebrew and Greek words for tithe may indicate simply a 'tenth'; but in reality, the Torah does not make a "strict" 10% in every single mention of 'tithe'. So, we understand that there is no commandment in Christianity that "recommends compulsory tithing[/i](strictly 10%)".

That said, Christian giving (whether tithes, freewill offerings, donations, contributions, seed-sowing, etc.) is a matter of the same principle as in the OT: the attitude and condition of the heart, which is far more important than any amount or percentage that anyone offers. When a believer is asked to bring an offering to God, the one thing He looks at is the heart: eg., "whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD" (Exo. 35:5). This is pretty much the same thing we find in 2 Cor. 8:12 - "if there be first a willing mind". Otherwise, of what value is anyone's offering (whatever he may call it) when the heart is not in a lovingly healthy state before God?

Shalom.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pigrim.1
I would assume the statement made in Hebrews 7:11 is quite explicit and unambiguos as it is clear that it is refering to the "commandment under the law to tithe" which was stated in verse 5. If in your highly esteemed opinion it is not refering to it, could tell us exactly what law/ commandment in very clear and precise terms that the verse is addressing.

Thanks for your concerns. To assure you, I've repeatedly addressed Hebrews 7:11 in detail (if you recall from other threads on tithing), and you only need to re-read my penultimate reply above to see the point. Your assumptions are froth with huge problems; but I'd rather help you again to see your mistakes.

Not only so, verses 5 and 12 which you quoted have also been well addressed. In summary, verse 5 speaks of "a commandment"; while verse 12 says that 'the priesthood being changed' would necessitate 'a change also of the law' - that is, the Law which was received under the Levitical priesthood (v. 11). Yet, "the Law" is not to be confused for "a commandment", in as much as the whole chapter does not teach that Abraham's tithes were under the Law or by any commandment; nor does it teach that the Levitical priesthood brought tithing to an end.

                   _______________________________

However, if your present cark is on Hebrews 7:11, let me again quote your inference(s) in order to answer your objection -

[list]1 Your inference:

KunleOshob:
I would assume the statement made in Hebrews 7:11 is quite explicit and unambiguos as it is clear that it is refering to the "commandment under the law to tithe" which was stated in verse 5.

[/list]

From your persuasion above, it's obvious your first problem is that you are assuming the Law to be only about the tithes; whereas tithing under the Law was only "a commandment" (just one out of the many commandments), and not the whole Law.

Your second problem is that you're assuming that tithing was only from the Law, as if it began with the Law or from there. Hence, since there is a change of both the Levitical priesthood and law, then tithing must have come to an end.  What you obviously have been missing is the fact that Abraham's tithes were also discussed in that chapter in such a powerful way as to say that even "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham" (v. 9-10). It should help you reason that the Levitical priesthood was not greater than Abraham's tithe that came much earlier.

Thirdly, you're assuming verse 11 is addressing the Law/commandment; whereas it is rather addressing the priesthood - please take another careful look at that verse:

[list]¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,
(for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there
that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec,
and not be called after the order of Aaron?[/list]

As you can see, the whole point of verse 11 is that "perfection" was not by the LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. The words in parenthesis (ie., 'for under it the people received the law') do not make the whole Law a matter only of tithes, because more often than not, that is the only thing you've assumed into those verses.

The Law in itself contained 'a commandment' to tithe; but it does not teach that the whole Law was about tithing. The big picture in Hebrews 7:11 was simply that "perfection" was not by the Levitical priesthood - that is the main argument of that verse, for which the question follows:

[list]". . what further need was there that another priest should rise
after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order
of Aaron?"[/list]

The verse was addressing the question of "priesthood", and this subject is kept up to the very end of that chapter. It is because you made the huge mistake of assuming "the Law" in Heb. 7:11 was to be misconstrued for 'a commandment' to tithe, that is why you raised this objection -

[list]2. Your objection:

KunleOshob:
If in your highly esteemed opinion it is not refering to it, could tell us exactly what law/ commandment in very clear and precise terms that the verse is addressing.

[/list]

Now, if Hebrews 7:11 was (as you stated) referring to the "commandment under the law to tithe", then you are seriously missing the point of that verse. Okay, you assumed that by the term "the Law" is meant 'the commandment to tithe', abi? Can you apply that idea to every verse in that chapter 7 and draw the same inference? Let's test out your logic:

        your persuasion:
       "the Law" (verse 11)   =   "a commandment to take tithes" (verse 5)

Question: according to Heb. 7:28, it is declared that "the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity"; therefore, is it correct to say that "a commandment to take tithes" was the very thing that "maketh men high priests which have infirmity"?!? If not, how come you have suppossed that verse 11 was referring to just one commandment as in verse 5?

The mention of "the Law" in verse 11 ('the people received the law') does not mean that the only thing about the Law is 'a commandment to tithe'. You have made the huge mistake of thinking that is the case; and the mention of the same Law in other verses in Hebrews just throws out your assumption. Do not make "a commandment" to be larger than "a commandment", because the commandment to tithe was not what made men into highpriests (v. 28).

Yet, we should understand that the Levitical priesthood does not precede the priesthood of Melchizedek. As is clear in Hebrews 7, Abraham's tithes went so far as to affect Levi; and not in any verse in that chapter is it taught that Abraham tithed under any Law or commandment. Thus, it could not be argued that the Levitical priesthood determines everything about tithes; nor does it teach that the Levitical priesthood brough tithing to an end.

Hallo abose,

abose:
How about this PG1:

Hebrews 7:12-19 (King James Version)

>snip<

God bless.

Thank you, dear abose. I've discussed Hebrews 7 several times in various threads on tithing. In brief, the chapter does not in itself nullify tithing as a principle. Let's see how that is so.

The highlight is in verse 19: "the law made nothing perfect", and is simply a discussion already continuing from verse 11 - "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood . ."  The argument in verse 19 that the Law made nothing perfect is drawn from the preceding verse 18 which highlights "the weakness and unprofitableness" of the Law. So, perhaps you should have started from verse 11 instead of 12.

All the same, in this thread I've tried to demonstrate what exactly is meant in Heb. 7:18 by the weakness of the Law, which is the very same thing pointed out in Heb. 8:7, and buttressing this with Rom. 8:3.

But let me first remind you of the gist of what I earlier discussed -

                        __________________                       __________________

[list]

I'm glad you finally quoted Hebrews 8:7, thank you.   I acknowledge that the first covenant had a "fault" - and that fault was not because it expected the impossible from anyone. . . not at all. Rather, the fault was simply its inability to make anyone "perfect" (compare Heb. 7:19). In what ways then is it taught in Scripture that the old covenant had a 'fault'? Let's go back to Romans 8:3 -

[list]"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"[/list]

That is one pivotal "fault" of the first covenant - it simply had no power in itself to 'condemn sin in the flesh' - it could not do it! In this sense, it made nothing "perfect", according to Hebrews 7:18-19 --

[list]"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."[/list]

The "weakness" is simply highlighted in Romans 8:3, as cited already - its weakness (of 'fault') was not because of the inability of the people, but rather the inability of the Law itself ("what the law could not do". So, no matter how much any godly believer tried to keep the 'old covenant' by seeking something from the Law, such a person could not thereby attain "justification" in the sight of God!

Therefore, if the 'first covenant' had this basic 'fault' (in that it could not condemn sin in the flesh), how then could it justify anybody at all?

[/list]

                        __________________                       __________________


From the above, you can see that I've already discussed Hebrews 7, which is pointing to what Hebrews 8:7 and Romans 8:3 are about. In light of all these, it becomes clear what verse 11 of Hebrews 7 means by "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood". It shows that the Levitical priesthood was not established to grant anyone "justification" in God's sight - and tithes (or any other type of giving) were not established for that purpose. Tithes or freewill offerings did not make Abraham or the Jews "perfect"; and these things certainly did not "justify" believers in the OT. They had nothing to do with propitiating the sins of anyone. It is because people have been reading their prejudices against tithes into that chapter (which is eisegesis), that is why they assume that the epistle of Hebrews is effectively condemning the principle of tithing; whereas, that is not the case.

The simple point in Hebrews 7:12-19 is that the old covenant 'made nothing perfect'; it does not teach that Christians cannot and should not see the principles of the Law. Think for a moment: if it could be argued that the chapter condemns tithes, then in the same manner both Abraham and the Jews were "condemned" - for Abraham was definitely not under the Law when he gave tithes to Melchizedek! Nor does it even say that the tithes which Abraham gave Melchizedek was 'only agricultural products', as is the mantra sung by anti-tithers. The consequence of this kind of anti-tithing reasoning would also be that nothing from the "weak and unprofitable" Law should be brought over into Christianity, if we are going to be honest - which includes loving God and loving neighbour: are we prepared to make that deal?

Further, Hebrews 7 shows two distinct types of tithes:
     (a) Abraham's - Heb. 7:6; and
     (b) the Levitical - Heb. 7:5.
While Abraham's tithes were not under any Law at all, it was rather the Levitical tithes that are stipulated in the Law by "a commandment" (v. 5). What is even of far more import is that Abraham's tithes affected the Levites as well even though the latter was not yet born (verse 9-10) - and this was stated immediately after saying in verse 8 that -

[list][li]In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die;
but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living - NIV[/li]
.
.
[li]Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes
are received by men who are subject to death;
while there [in the case of Melchizedek],
they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually] - Amplified[/li]
.
.
[li]In the one case tithes are received by mortal men,
but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives - ESV[/li][/list]

In all these, it is not as if Christians are under any Law or obligation or coercion to tithe ; for that is not what Hebrews 7 teaches at all. Even Abraham was not ruled by such things, but rather by faith - Galatians 3:7. Though the Levites "have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law", it does not teach that tithing in itself is "done away" or that Christians cannot apply principles of the law in their lives. In any case Hebrews 7 argues that "perfection" did not come by the LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD - and we know that Christians who tithe are not seeking to be "justified" by the Levitical priesthood at all. Even those under the Levitical priesthood paid tithes in Abraham (vv. 9-10) - and that was long before even the Law was given to Moses. So yes, Christians could tithe; but this does not make it a "requirement" to be 'justified' or 'made perfect' by the Law.

Lastly, a reminder about the "principle" of the Law:

Even though we are not under the Law, Christians apply the "principles" of the Law in practical living and Christian doctrines - on marriage, women's place in church, etc. And what about Christian giving? Yes, Hebrews 7 shows us the value of the Law without bringing anyone under the legal "obligation" or "requirement" of the Levitical priesthood.

In just the same way, even the apostle Paul could refer implicitly to the same OT Law for Christian giving without asking Christians to be bound under the legal "requiremnet or obligation" of the Law. When we read 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, it is clear that is what Paul did - he was most definitely referring to the Law (compare with Numbers 18 and Deuteronomy 18), and in verse 14 of 1 Corinthians 9 he declares: "Even so hath the Lord ordained", without meaning that Christians should be "bound by the legal requirements or obligations" of the Law.

I hope this helps to shed light on what Hebrews 7 points to, rather than assume it is against tithes in and of itself. Shalom.

@Nanai,

Many people understand the Muslim concern for pig products - whether its fat or meat.

However, the authenticity of the article you reposted above seems to have been questioned so many times, basically for two main reasons:

1. its authorship - [list]

Nanai:
Dr. M. Amjad Khan
Medical Research Institute
United States)))

[/list]

Please, which 'M[/b]edical [b]R[/b]esearch [b]I[/b]nstitute' in particular is "Dr. M. Amjad Khan" connected with? The reasons for this question are that:

       (a) there are several 'MRI's (Medical Research Institutes) in the United States;
            and they are usually designated so that observers may know for sure that
            a particular MRI is being referred to; and -

       (b) Research Institutes in the USA are not (usually) arbitrarily appended to a
            research fellow's or member's name with reference to personal ideas
            which have not been peer-reviewed.

as regarding (a) above, there are several examples of 'MRI's (Medical Research Institutes) in the USA, and they include -

[list][li][b]USAMRIID - the U.S. A[/b]rmy [b]M[/b]edical [b]R[/b]esearch [b]I[/b]nstitute of [b]I[/b]nfectious [b]D[/b]iseases (here)[/li]
.
.
[li][b]USAMRICD - U[/b]nited [b]S[/b]tates [b]A[/b]rmy [b]M[/b]edical [b]R[/b]esearch [b]I[/b]nstitute of [b]C[/b]hemical [b]D[/b]efense (here)[/li]
.
.
[li][b]SMRI - the S[/b]tanley [b]M[/b]edical [b]R[/b]esearch [b]I[/b]nstitute (here)[/li]
.
.
[li][b]BMRI - The B[/b]urke [b]M[/b]edical [b]R[/b]esearch [b]I[/b]nstitute (here)[/li]
.
.
[li][b]USARIEM - United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (here)[/li][/list]

Indeed, sometime ago someone tried to point out that there was a 'Medical Research Institute' without a designation as in the examples above. However, the link he supplied was not a "Research Institute", but rather was a company dealing with sports nutrition products and based in San Francisco, California. From the BusinessWeek website, it could be clearly seen that this company "does not have any Key Executives recorded".

So, what particular "Medical Research Institute, United States" is "Dr. M. Amjad Khan" a member?

           ____________


2. The problem of assumed E-codes for Pig Fat: Another problem with the recycled article is that it mentions the so-called 'E-codes' as containing PIG FAT - [list]

Nanai:
So, I request all MUSLIMS or non pork eaters to check the ingredients of the ITEMS of daily use and match it with the following list of E-CODES. If any of the ingredients listed below is found, try to avoid it, as it has got PIG FAT;

[size=14pt]E100[/size], E110, E120, E 140, E141, E153, E210, E213, E214, E216, E234, E252, E270, E280, E325, E326, E327, E334, E335, E336, E337, E422, E430, E431, E432, E433, E434, E435, E436, E440, E470, E471, E472, E473, E474, E475,E476, E477, E478, E481, E482, E483, E491, E492, E493, E494, E495, E542,E570, E572, E631, E635, E904.

[/list]

Em, hang on a minute. This is highly suspect, Nanai. Let's take just one example: E100 - does this refer to something that has PIG FAT? Medically (and honestly), that is not true.

The fact is that E100 is a code, not for pig fat, but for a rhizomatous herbaceous perennial plant of the ginger family. It (E100) is commonly known as "Turmeric (Curcuma longa)". You may consult any good resource to verify that it is not referring to pig fat, but rather to a plant. One such source is Wikipedia -

[list][list]Turmeric (coded as E100 when used as a food additive)
is used to protect food products from sunlight. The oleoresin is used
for oil-containing products. The curcumin/polysorbate solution or curcumin
powder dissolved in alcohol is used for water containing products.
Over-coloring, such as in pickles, relishes and mustard, is sometimes used
to compensate for fading[/list][/list]

Even this Muslim website (muslimtents.com) notes that E100 is Turmeric -

        E Codes:

        E100 Curcumin, turmeric [Colouring] halal

I don't mean to upset anything in the article you've reposted here, Nanai (it has been circulated too many times in numerous muslim websites with the same message that the E-codes contain pig fat). However, it does not appear that any Muslim is able to show which 'Medical Research Institute' the said "Dr. M. Amjad Khan" is connected with; nor does it appear how any muslim (with or without a medical background) could explain how a herbaceous perennial plant could contain "pig fat".

Perhaps you may help readers find pointers to these concerns.

Salam.

Pastor AIO:
. . . But to be fair, I don't think that Kunle used Tithe to mean 23 percent or more.

Nope, he did not - it is the anti-tithers whom he's fond of quoting that drew that inference. Kunle should learn to play fair when discussing this subject instead of being reactive: often, he's hardly aware that by slurring others, he makes a worse case for his own camp.

Pastor AIO:
O boy! I've always thought that 'Tithe' was an old english word meaning a Tenth. I think we're conflating that with the act of giving in general. When the Jews are requested to bring a tithe of their agricultural produce to eat before God that is quite specific and does not refer to other taxes and offerings that they might also bring.

Perhaps it would be easier to scrap the word Tithe altogether because it seems to be a meaningless term now. When people start tithing more or less than 10 percent it's like people being ferried across the river in an helicopter! To ferry across the river would presumably require a ferry, ie a boat, not an helicopter. Similarly to give a tithe would require 10 percent, not 40 percent. Many words change their meanings in very subtle ways, especially old words, and we need to be careful we don't conflate things when we read old texts like the bible.
It is common in the english language for nouns to slowly become verbs. So instead of 'taking the bus to the other side of town' people now 'bus it to the other side of town'. Or in the above example, instead of taking the ferry across the river, we ferry across the river.
Similarly with tithes, a tithe is actually a noun that has become a verb 'to tithe'. This it seems is what has opened the door to all sorts of confusion.

Lol, people deride 'tithes' simply because they don't like the word, not because it sends them to the grave. Understandably, anti-tithers would ferret all kinds of excuses that cannot stand up to face value when closely examined. Is it not funny that it is the anti-tithing professors who are calculating all sorts of figures for the word 'tithe'? And when, for the sake of argument, we agree with such inferences, they immediately abandon their own arguments. Na wah!

Okay, we say 'tithe' is 10%; but anti-tithers say "that is not true," and they holla back with anything from 23% to 40%. Wetin we go do again? If we then go on to say that anything one sets apart from their income is also a percentage, wahala go start again!

Anyways, make una enjoy.

My sister, plenty good news to share. I tried sending you an email today though, don't know if you received it. But I'll re-wire to your hotmail, and another to follow. Plenty blessings - Jesus is Lord.

KunleOshob:
[quote author=abose link=topic=263218.msg3839601#msg3839601 date=1241785737]Tithing is an Old Testament concept. The tithe was a requirement of the law in which all Israelites were to give 10% of everything they earned and grew to the Tabernacle / Temple (Leviticus 27:30; Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 14:24; 2 Chronicles 31:5). Some understand the Old Testament tithe as a method of taxation to provide for the needs of the priests and Levites of the sacrificial system. The New Testament nowhere commands, or even recommends that Christians submit to a legalistic tithe system. Paul states that believers should set aside a portion of their income in order to support the church (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

Just taught i should point out that the church highlighted above that Paul was raising money for in the above passage is actually church members in Jerusalem who were being persecuted at that time, it was not meant to "run" the church instituition and it was not a commandement passed down to all christians. It was a specific collect for a specific pupose.[/quote]Lol, Kunle you have a serious problem with yourself, that's for sure. If 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was specifically about collection for church members in Jerusalem, are 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 not addressing the same thing? Have we not been through this same issue before? Why do you act like you really are out to confirm you 'excel in memory lapse'?

KunleOshob:
When would you get tired of this your worn out argument that tithes could be something other than ten percent the church stipulates ten percent the bible also defines tithes as ten percent all your analogies that it could be more or less than ten percent is in vain we know what it is defined to be and what people are manipulated into paying and that is what we are up against.

I feel very sorry for you, Kunle. If that is your problem, you seem to be confirming the fact that many anti-tithers with Ph.Ds have been writing vanities as well - because they are the ones who have been making different percentages for Biblical tithes. We know that most of your redundant arguments are nothing other than the recycled carpings borrowed from other anti-tithing folks; and the several redundant excuses you've been using against tithes have all been addressed.

Unless you've a short memory, are you forgetting that Russell E. Kelly argued 'tithes' from Numbers 31? Go look up that chapter in the Bible, and you will not find the word "tithe" there. Thus, if he supposedly was alluding to the 'heave offering' there as "tithes" (verse 29), is it not clear that even Russell himself knows for certain that the percentage there was a meager 0.02%?? Is 0.02% the same thing in your arithmetic as 10%?

When Gamine once asked, "How can a Tithe be more than 10%", my answer was: "Please ask the holders of Ph.Ds who have been hooting against tithes and calculated it to 40%."

That obviously was from the fact that Russell et al have said on various occasions that the Biblical tithe was more than 10%. Late last year, huxley helped to repost Russell's comments on this, where the latter had calculated it to be 40%. Not content with that, Russell went on to state that -

[list]John MacArthur, an extremely popular U.S. educator, author, evangelist, and radio personality agrees. "So when someone says the Jew gave ten percent, that isn’t true. The Jew gave twenty-three percent to begin with. . ."[/list]

Get that, Kunle? You can write off John MacArthur now as someone with "worn out argument that tithes could be something other than ten percent"; for Russell quotes him as saying that your argument of "10%" isn't true, but that the Jew gave 23% to begin with!

When the only thing people like you see about 'tithe' is "10%", my answer has been -

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

Kunle, you cannot ignore this fact, that even anti-tithers themselves have said that when someone says the Jew gave "ten percent" (10%), that isn’t true! That's straight out of their own mouths - and you can as well describe such anti-tithers as "grand manipulators" of the meaning of 'tithe' just because they do not peg it at "10%" for you. Your problem is that your inconsistency tends to drive you to vacant and reactive assertions that weaken your position and embarrass your own camp.

KunleOshob:
The topic of this post says "what tithe really means" and some of us have defined it
undiluted from the bible which defines it as ten percent of the produce of the land of Israel and the tenth animal that passes under the rod. This is how the bible defines it. I wonder were our pastors and pilgrim.1 got their own definitions from

You obviously haven't read your Bible and are merely singing the same redundant arguments you borrowed from others - arguments which have been well laid to rest as untenable and only repetitive. It amazes me that after all your recycling, you never once intelligently address any question - simply because you have no clue. Enjoy.

@abose,

abose:
The point I have stated all along is that we are not bound by a hard number as Christians, you should give what your heart desires and can afford.

Easy bros, have I been arguing for a 'hard number' all this time? Perhaps it may help you to go through several of my posts where I've often highlighted the fact that tithes are not always and only '10%' - even honest anti-tithers who write hundreds of pages against the subject will tell you it is not always 10% even though it is called 'tithe'. Your complaints about Lucifer and some people claiming to be Christian, etc. seem more to be deflections than a balanced approach to this subject. We don't have to bring in such things as if it was 'tithes' that turned Lucifer into the devil. Haba. Let's try and keep all these unrelated issues in their proper perspectives and not mix up ideas here and there. Blessings.

Bros abose,

Is there something the matter? It seems you're sadly contradicting yourself; and if that's the case, it doesn't help for you to make such embarrasingly contradictory statements all in your quest to prove yourself an anti-tither. On the one hand, you accept something; then on the other hand you reject the very same thing you've accepted. Here's an example:

1.

abose:
Paul states that believers should set aside a portion of their income in order to support the church (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

. . then:
2.

abose:
The New Testament nowhere assigns a certain percentage of income to set aside, but only says it is to be “in keeping with his income” (1 Corinthians 16:2)

Indeed, the NT does not argue for a rigid figure; but is it that the word "portion" (of income) is confusing to you as a difficult and different thing from "percentage" (of income)? I'm just wondering, though.  What is a 'portion of income' if it does not convey the same sense as 'percentage' of one's income? As I've said several times, "anything you set apart from your income is also a percentage"; and here's some help to buttress that statement for you:

Basically, both a 'portion' and a 'percentage' of one's income point to the same idea - see, for instance, the following:

[list][li]freedictionary.com >>
portion: "a part separated from a whole"[/li]
.
.
[li]Merriam-Webster's LD online >>
percent: "2 [singular] : a part of a whole : PORTION ▪ A large percent [=(more commonly) percentage] of their profits comes from online sales."[/li][/list]

Hence, if a portion basically conveys the same sense as a percentage ('of income'), what is the substance in arguing two things, that -

[list][li]*'believers should set aside a portion of their income'[/li]
[li]*the NT 'nowhere assigns a certain percentage of income to set aside'[/li][/list].

If you're happy that believers should set aside a portion, is it too much to also say that believers could set aside a percentage of their income and mean the same thing? Any "portion" or "percentage" will do, as long as the giver is doing so cheerfully and not by obligation or coercion. This is why I believe several other versions point to the same thing:

[list]ALT - 'let each one of you* be putting aside [something],
storing up [or, saving] whatever he shall be prospering'[/list]

[list]CEV - 'each of you must put aside part of what you have earned'[/list]

[list]ESV - 'each of you is to put something aside and store it up,
as he may prosper'[/list]

[list]ISV - 'each of you should set aside and save some of your money
in proportion to what you have'[/list]

[list]Amplified - 'let each one of you [personally] put aside something
and save it up as he has prospered [in proportion to what he is given]'[/list]

[list]NLT - 'you should each put aside a portion of the money you have earned'[/list]

So, whether it is a 'part', or a 'portion', or in 'proportion', or 'some', the basic idea in all these is simply that whatever you set aside from the whole is still a percentage of your whole. Notice this is the consistent thing I've been calling your attention to - "whatever" does not mean it has to be exactly "10%", for it is simply what a giver has purposed in his/her heart to set aside.

abose:
There is no need for personal attacks, we are all trying to serve the same God (I know I am) and knowledge is important to be able to distinguish the Wolves from the Sheep in these end times we live in.

Praise God. If you recognize that there's no need for personal attacks, why your derogation against others earlier?

abose:
You have to be yoruba to get what Obey and Sunny sings about just like you have to educate your self to understand the Bible rather than let the Wolves teach you incorrectly. God bless each and everyone of us as we seek his truth.

People who have chosen to give tithes know what they're doing. If we want to expose wolves, we should do so in a healthy manner and not use 'tithes' as an excuse for unjustified assertions. God bless you.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=263218.msg3836735#msg3836735 date=1241727404]pilgrim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my sister!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
missed you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
love you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bless you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_babyosisi[/quote][size=15pt]WOW!![/size] Thank God - my prayers are answered! I've been wondering how to contact you after so long!! My fault, though - a lot came my way and I had to attend them. Nne, make we yan by email, abi? G-mail, I go send you some. I hope you dey kampe? God bless you. Deepest love to you and all yours!!

Image123:
This is exactly what I wrote about in my previous post KunleOshob.you brought up a issue that levites are not to own property,and then we prove that they can and have, and instead of you to agree to that,you're simply bringing up another weather beaten point of tithes must be food,and are to be eaten in God's presence.when we start to talk about people like Abraham and Jacob now,you'll likely run to Hebrews or something.quit this circuit friend.

Image123:
eh eh,see as my friend kunle dey take the heat for here.pilgrim.1,carry go, I dey wit U. lol. Don't mind those anti-tithers, they excel in the memory lapse tactic. They can't query your points, then they bring up another 'point' and then you explain that, and they come up with another,until they go round the circle and bring up some old weather beaten 'point' again. Kunle has been informed before that Barnabas was a levite who had land and sold it Acts4v36,37,so also Jeremiah the prophet.I'm praying wit you that God will open his and their eyes in Jesus' name.

Dear Image123,

What can I say? In a nutsehell, you've very well captured my observations about the memory lapse and circular reasoning thingy when discussing with our friends . Indeed, not many of them would answer simple questions when queried on the assertions they make - most of which can't stand on a leg. To be honest though, it happened to me in my anti-tithing days until I realized that those often-repeated complaints against tithing are indefensible when closely examined. However, not every 'non-tither' (a different thing from "anti-tither") argues against tithes, and we can be thankful for that. God bless and enrich you more.

todak:
@ pilgrim

Thanks for the advice and i will surely take to it, Thank God for your life and how he changed you, you have really made my day. God bless you, keep up the good work.

@todak,
Good to know - and God bless you plenty. As you live for Him, He will constantly show His faithfulness in all things in your walk. Enjoy.

@KunleOshob,

I should hardly have replied you, but just to clear up some issues - because no matter how many times you return your circular drama, it's quite obvious now that others have observed the same thing about your arguments.

KunleOshob:
I don't believe you are waiting for me to calm down, you are probably rampaging through the scriptures as i write looking for some remotely connected scripture which you can expand on to prove whatever hypothesis you are thinking of dreaming up.

To assure you, that was just your noise again, as I wasn't doing any such. If you had applied a bit of common sense and patience you would've seen clearly that Pastor AIO had given the best possible simple answers earlier. And because I knew those were very intelligent answers in his reply, my comments were easy enough to help you see it: "In due course, I'll proffer a few hints to add to that" - meaning that I'm very clear to see his comments as "answers" to which I had agreed were very-well reasoned; and also that I knew of several other answers that explain both sets of references for a coherence that not many people see. I'll save you those others (available to anyone anyday if they need it); and I'll just point you to Pastor AIO's answers by showing you from Scripture why I agreed earlier with him:

                 __________________________________________________


[list][quote author=Pastor AIO link=topic=263218.msg3831615#msg3831615 date=1241633974]
I'm curious to know how you reconcile these apparently contradictory verses.[/quote]'Apparently contradictory', but there's a coherence between them. As earlier, I believe you've provided a few sound answers - and I'll only provide the references to show why I agreed with you earlier:

[list]

Pastor AIO:
Me personally, the only way of reconciling them from my perception is that the Levites did have their own cities

[/list]

[list]1. Yes, the Levites had their own cities -
[li]Lev. 25:32-33[/li][/list]

[list]

Pastor AIO:
but where they migrated and lived amongst the other israelite tribes they were not allowed to own property in those towns.

[/list]

[list]2. Yes, the Levites who served migrated and lived among the other tribes -
[li]Deut. 18:6[/li][/list]

[list]3. - - BUT, they also owned property in those towns --
[li]Lev. 25:33 >>
'. . for the houses of the cities of the Levites are
their possession among the children of Israel'[/li][/list]

[list]

Pastor AIO:
The citizens of those towns had to provide for them.

[/list]

[list]4. Yes, that is exactly what happened -
[li]Numbers 35:2-3 >>
Command the children of Israel, that they give unto
the Levites of the inheritance of their possession
cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites
suburbs for the cities round about them. And the cities
shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall
be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.[/li]
.
.
[li]Joshua 21:2-3 >>
And they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan,
saying, The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses to
give us cities to dwell in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle.
And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites out of their
inheritance, at the commandment of the LORD, these cities
and their suburbs.
[/li]
.
.
[li]Joshua 14:3-4 (ESV) >>
For Moses had given an inheritance to the two and one-half tribes
beyond the Jordan, but to the Levites he gave no inheritance among them.
For the people of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim.
And no portion was given to the Levites in the land,
but only cities to dwell in, with their pasturelands for their livestock
and their substance.[/li][/list]

[list]

Pastor AIO:
This was probably done to mark out the levites as a people separated unto God. They also had to undergo purification rites that the other Israelites didn't go through.

[/list]

[list]5. Good summary - thank you, for that is precisely what it was; seeing that the Levites were not numbered among the other tribes of Israel, but were nonetheless later numbered:

(a) not numbered among Israel for those conscripted to war -
[Num. 1:45-46 and Num. 26:62]
.
(b) but were later numbered specially for spiritual service -
[Num. 1:47-50][/list][/list]

                 __________________________________________________


In all this, Kunle, I very well had my answers - but was patient to allow you time to apply a bit of reason, peradventure you might see it. Alas! even though Pastor AIO had summarized it all, you failed to see it. And because I agreed mostly with his summary, my comments were: "I appreciate reasoning like yours: no evasions or prevarications." What I did here was simply provide the references to clear all doubts about the matter. So, where was the coherence?  Look again: for Joshua 14:4 held the answer for you:

        '. . therefore they gave no part unto the Levites in the land,
        save cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for their cattle and
        for their substance.'

This solves your problem - not a difficult task if you had been reading your Bible carefully.

Let's review: now you can see that it is false to assert that the Levites were "not being allowed to own property" - for they actually did own property (Lev. 25:33 - "the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession".

KunleOshob:
Ifyou read pilgrim's bone of contention here you would find that as usual she is arguing based on shaft and rhetorics whilst ignoring the real issues that tithes means food to be eaten by the tither in God's presence and it was NEVER directed at christians.

Lol, forcing yourself to make such allegations only tend to weaken your position further and does critical damage to your double-speak. Since I entered this thread, my discussions have been based on the untenable assertions anti-tithers often make and cannot defend intelligently from Scripture. Roll back: was it not you who brought up the issue about Levites not being allowed to own property just because they were called to serve in the worship center? And what have we seen than the fallacy of that assertion? A second - you borrowed the false statement from others about Jews today not tithing; and again, that was bleached for its emptiness. Kunle, if you really wanted to pay attention to "the real issues", you would not be sounding so desperate as you do. But it's your call, so please do enjoy it.

KunleOshob:
The only people robbing God and his children as far as tithes is concerned are the pastors preaching it in God's name cos God did not at any time in the bible instituite tithing for christians, that aside the type of tithing being preached today is a gross violation and corruption of biblical tithing which had nothing to do with money or income, that is apart from the fact that it was done once a year and not weekly/monthly that those robbing God preach.

We've heard that whining in bold repeatedly - you can solve your problem by checking up on Jews who understand the nature of the Law and have not been as rigid as you often come across.

Cheers.

abose:
I am not a pilgrim and can't argue with you on how to be one, from your point one can say Abraham didn't teach his son Jacob enough or Jacob wouldn't have been promising Yahweh 10% if he blessed his journey. You are free to part with your money anyway you see fit (as we say back home, you don't question someone who has oil about what to fry). I have decided not to pay tithes going forward and I can come up with ways to use such money to glorify God just not in some pastor's pockets. Those same pastors require folks (even the poor ones) to pay for activities that should be taken care of with church funds, "ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free, " Jesus has paid for my sins and his grace is upon me so I don't need laws when I have grace. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"
Indoctrination is bad for folk's health, evidence abound yet they pursue the same old,
I would love to see a "store house" in today's churches, Bentley garage is probably the closest we will get to seeing that, lol

Was Jacob "forced" to tithe? By what "Law"? It's true we choose to tithe, so what's biting you about that? Can't do more than whine and complain? It's a simple thing, really: you don't have to give anything - seeing others tithe or give freely and by choice while you complain all day makes one wonder why you have such a restless spirit after all that Jesus did for you. Whinging as you do is the weak man's first-aid, and I'd keep my fingers crossed to read more intelligent entries from you. Shalom.

abose:
Carry on Kunle, it is nice to see someone who knows the Bible on this side of the Isle. God owns everything we have, why would he require a percentage of what is already his? These tithe apologists need to sit down and study the Bible and not just what someone tells them from the pulpit, no wonder some want to see your w2s now before they accept your membership though I would much rather worship alone than be in those places. Nothing against "altar calls" for specific needs but it much be stopped once the goal has been reached, Our High Priest is one and only-Jesus Christ.

I wonder that when people talk like this, the result is always the same: individualism. But it's your call, though - so enjoy it. On the other hand, if God owns it all, why are you not giving your all to Him? Why complain as if you do more than you say? Leave people who tithe or give the freedom to do so, not because they borrow from your pocket in doing so, but because they do not see it as "required". And, if you cannot see that anything you set apart from your income is also a percentage (1 Corinthians 16:2), then better withdraw your hand and give absolutely nothing. It saves you all the unnecessary drama you've been displaying.

@ttalks,

ttalks:
@pilgrim.1,

I know you'll definitely want to reply Kunle and probably abose , but pls, just give it a rest.

I know how it feels if a comment from someone puts u in a kind of badlight;u'll definitely want to retort/respond.

Lol, I don't feel bad, actually - I feel very sorry for him and people who reason in a circular manner as he does. I'd like to give it a rest and think that would be the appropriate thing to do, as long as other observers have seen that no matter how one points to the Scriptures, some just don't get (probably due to memory lapse, as Image123 opined).

ttalks:
Let's just leave it at the fact that the likes of Kunle, Sir John, abose, myself and all others who share our view would continue to give out of our freewill and out of the compassion of our hearts but would not label or structure our giving to resemble tithes as described in the old testament and also not have any worries that we are robbing God(as todak put it)

That's okay - but perhaps you're forgetting that those who were asked to give in the OT were asked to do so willingly, from their hearts (including tithes). You should appreciate the fact that some who tithe today do so out of the same 'freewill' and cheerfulness of heart.

ttalks:
and,

the fact that you would like to continue paying tithes as it pleases you based on ur convictions about it as long as you are not doing it based on any form of pressure,coersion;deception, or fulfilment of a commandment.

Let's respect our views for now and lay this matter at rest.

Aye. Cheers.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
I'm curious to know how you reconcile these apparently contradictory verses.

Me personally, the only way of reconciling them from my perception is that the Levites did have their own cities but where they migrated and lived amongst the other israelite tribes they were not allowed to own property in those towns. The citizens of those towns had to provide for them. This was probably done to mark out the levites as a people separated unto God. They also had to undergo purification rites that the other Israelites didn't go through.

This is why I appreciate reasoning like yours: no evasions or prevarications, just straight to the point - many thanks. In due course, I'll proffer a few hints to add to that (just waiting to see if Kunle would calm down and see it himself).

Pastor AIO:
However having said that, to get back to the topic of this thread, it doesn't change the fact that tithes are foodstuff and supposed to be eaten in God's presence. That is what Tithes really mean.

That is one meaning of tithes, not the only meaning. Remember also that the Levites could eat their tithes in any other place: please see Numbers 18:31 -

'And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households:
for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of
the congregation.'

Pastor AIO:
The meal is used to feed also those without possessions in the city. This practice does not occur in any contemporary christian church that I'm aware of. Tithes are here used to fill up the coffers of the already rich.

True, that is the abuse that everyone's worried about. However, the abuse does not make the thing in itself to be untenable.

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
why don't you show us the coherence, what i quoted was from scriptures and NOT my opinion. If you have a seemingly contradictory scripture then it is left to you to thrash it out and NOT me.

Lol. . yeye dey worry you! Was what I also quoted not from Scripture? If you no fit balance your flat assertion, tell the forum, then beg me! Beg me now. Yeye!

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
When i said i am sure those preachers preach tithe, it was on the assumption that all properity pastors [which they are] preaxh tithes. i never infered that they preached tithes in that video, an that is why i mentioned that tithes is already taken as granted becos they have instituitionalized it.

Kunle, I understand you and can bear with your concerns. The thing is that you haven't handled this subject fairly. I've taken the time to check out these issues; but it's not my style to make everyone guilty just because some people are abusing tithes. If that is how we read issues, perhaps also we should all reject 'freewill offerings' for the same reason that we often take it for granted since these same preachers in the clips use the same terms for the same effect. Let's learn to discuss in a healthy manner and not be reactive. I know very many pastors who preach tithes and freewill offerings, and they have lived examplary lives in the Christian faith - surely this should not make them to come under the same accusations of the 'prosperity preachers' such as in the clips.

realpastor:
Pilgrim,what exactly are you driving at?

Please read my posts and let me know what issues you may have. Thank you.