₦airaland Forum

JeSoul:
ps. I owe you some pix, lemme think up an expedient solution.

I'm patient, I'm sure you're creative. But don't make me have to pop down during my visit to Toronto later this year .

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
Here there are certain things churches are not allowed to do in order to retain their "tax exempt" status - ranges from politics to social issues. Should a church rather pay taxes and function however they please or work within the limitations imposed on it by the govt? Is it wrong for a church to want to function in a manner that is harmonious with the state?

Close to my position, but I would that churches do not seek any kind of legal incorporation and believers make any church - as opposed to charitable - giving out of after tax income.

The church will of course in some respects be "subject" to general laws. We mentioned zoning, planning etc. But not yoked by specific ones aimed at neutering them.

Do any of the Nigerian MOGS have a record of railing against the abuses Nigerias politicians subject its citizens to? Or are they somehow yoked, acquiescent and really part of the problem? The scriptural narrative is clear. The theme's unmistakable.

tbc

JeSoul:
While this body serves to keep religious bodies/charities accountable - and that is a good thing, but from a spiritual perspective - from a Holy Spirit perspective, I agree with you it amounts to being unequally yoked. But realistically, how many churches would rather be free and independent and not seek extra finances by getting taxes back?

Accountable? For ensuring the faith is contended for? The true gospel is preached? Christians live God gloryfying lives? The state cares less about that. Will the state intervene if a Church leader fornicates his way through the choir? Or preaches or practices anything contrary to the scripture. The states aim is not accountability, its control, or submission. Other than the silver, whats in view here to benefit the church? But the prid pro quo is too great and spiritually dangerous.

The Church in its natural spirit-led state is a threat to the state. I spoke about themes earlier - or maybe it was another thread !

When Herod took his brothers wife? Why was it JTB that spoke out? Why not the Pharisees? Because he was Gods - a type of the true unyoked church - the Pharisees were compromised. Afforded their position by the state to keep the people in check and reek platitudes. So as a church they were ineffectual, neutered, dead. As a charitable religious organisation the state loved them. And I'm sure some silver changed hands. What happened to JTB ? The state persecuted and killed him.

tbc.

JeSoul:
Praise the Lord!  
Lol at the SOS reference . . . glad it is still resonating  

Hi Jesoul, it not only resonates, it quite relevant here.

JeSoul:
Thank you for the above breakdown. I've heard about the UK charities commission but never this clearly and based on that I think I would agree whole heartedly that this is not the ideal situation for the church of Christ to be in. I bolded some parts of your post, and the most disturbing in bold red . . . really? they have/can influence sermon content? really?

Absolutely. The secular government agenda is foisted on the church. Even if only in part. So here, the gay/feminists lobbies are quite powerful and their priorities are high up the state agenda. Hence you'll rarely hear anything those lobbies consider off-message in charitable church sermons. The church is then not just yoked, but used to further the state agenda. The leverage is the states silver and the church wilfully subjecting itself to the states laws to obtain that silver.

tbc.

debosky:
As long as you are on this earth, you will be subject to earthly authority in some shape or form. We can't say because we are 'free' we'll go build a noisy church in a quiet residential area or erect a building in the middle of the freeway.

We must also remember what 'absolute' power did to the Catholic church in the past - their nearly total control of land, money and power led to absolute corruption.

1. That is rendering unto Ceasar. Planning, zoning, noise restictions. It is also not causing offence and being at peace with all.

2. It was precisely because the Catholic Church' interplay with the state and political inclinations that that happened.

The church should not be subject to, yoked with or seek the power of.

One last point. The church/state interplay is a resonating scrpitural theme. And the state has always persecuted the true church.

Thanks for your response.

God bless
TV

debosky:
The money given to the charitable organisation still goes to the organisation, it still impacts the life/lives of the people involved and whatever else the money was intended for.

My personal view is that whatever you get back as a tax return by virtue of your giving, GIVE IT AGAIN and then claim the return and continue the cycle. back tax returns, then give AGAIN and claim back tax returns the more.

Agreed for an individual. I use it to donate to humanitarian crises. Its slightly different in that the money is donated tax free so there's no reclaim, but its essentially the same and I do it. I don't think church should.

debosky:
This talk of being 'subject' to the law is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned - in order to avoid abuse, it is very right to be subject to financial regulation. We have enough people destroying the image of the Church by their wrongdoings that is imperative to have this oversight.

I appreciate your position here. But should the church need to b regulated by the state? It doesn't prevent wrongdoing, only seeks to penalise where it has occured. Who asks an outsider to chasten his wife?

tbc

debosky:
I don't think there's anything wrong in filing tax returns - there's nothing 'charitable' in letting the government keep the money in my opinion!

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars. It may well be dressed up as a "tax refund" but its essentially state money that comes with obligations to the state.

debosky:
But seriously speaking, the key issue here is the motive. If you are giving simply to dodge the tax man, then it is definitely wrong and not acceptable in God's sight. However, if you give of your own volition and still get a tax return, I don't see the harm.

Its slightly different at an individual level. We are all subject to the laws of the state and our "charitable giving" is tax deductable. Nothing changes if an individual chooses to take advantage of that.

Church funds however, should be distinct and seperate, and not made subject to "charitable giving" laws. Subject to the leading of The Holy Spirit only or the consensus of the congregation. For the Church its different. The church is a body, a bride and she is to be submissive to her own husband. To take advantage of tax breaks a church/organisation/charity has to assume a legal status, which yokes it to the state.

tbc.

Consultant:
The pastor overlooked the context of the instruction in Ezekiel 44. When God divided up the land of Cannan among the tribes of Israel, the Levites were the only tribe that did not receive an inheritance. The Lord required them to keep their focus on serving Him only. They did not work, or make a living, so they were given a portion of the firstfruits and other offerings (not all of it) as their source of income. If we interpret this in today's context, then you can assume that the salary the pastor receives from the church is his portion of the firstfruit - a part of the tithes and offerings paid into the church, that is given to him for his upkeep. See Ezekiel 44:28 for clarification (posted below).

Welcome Consultant, I'm sure I remember you from before, before. But if I'm mistaken, welcome anyway. And if you're not been away, or are new, then, ooops sorry !

I for one see cross testamental references and themes and shadows & types. But I don't agree the we should lift OT practices, laws or dictates and wholesale apply them to NT Chrisitan life. Neither do I think - or more precisely, I do not see the scriptures as teaching - we should somehow re-work or re-interprete OT mores to configure NT practice.

To the detriment of many, the law and prohets are confused and/or mixed with grace. Moses is mistaken for Christ.

There is no distinct or seperate mediatory priesthood in Christianity. To apply Ezekiel 44 as you have, is somehow morphing the levitical/Aaronic priesthood with that of Christ. That priesthood and the law that was structured around it has been done away with.

God bless
TV

I do know that in the US, some churches are incorporated as companies. Same difference. You become a legal entity, subject to the state and its laws. I'm sure the US equivalent of being a charity brings its own yoke.

I understand the charity commission influence is so pervasive here in the UK as to even influence sermon content. But be that the case or not, the relationship IMO is already a spiritually adulterous one. The Church of Christ is a bride betrothed to the one.

So while it looks smart, may even appear wise. I see it as utterly wrong. The church must remain free and subject only to her Beloved. Sorry if I'm waxing a lil' lyrical, blame that SOS thread  !

God bless
TV

contd.

Taxes are levied by the state  - all things being equal - to develop and maintain infrastructure for the good of all. Church goers, Christians, use whatever label you will, utilise the infrastucture and services provided like everyone else. Why would we (the church) claim tax refunds? As I pointed, out tax refunds given by the state are granted in return for control. The Church cannot serve two masters or even afford to be unequally yoked.

Let me make my point with a case known to all of us KICC was involved in a huge imbroglio with the state here about use of its funds. ^{Now please, let me make this clear; I do not discuss, people, personalities, denominations or sects per se. Doctine yes, policy sure, my walk absolutely. This is not an opinion on the church or their leader.} This is merely to illustrate my position.

So my point is that the reason the state could intervene and rule was because of what I see as a adulterous monetary relationship. Like someone said, "he'd rather give cash". If we as say a NL church meet and pool whatever amount of our post tax income and do whatever with it. No one govermental, corporate, legal or whatever has the right to interfere or rule over what we do. Led by the Holy Spirit only. Subject to one Lord only. tbc.

Hallelujah!
I have waited patiently for this day and in truth, I am still somewhat wary. I have always wanted to press the issue of tithing beyond the doctrinal to the practical and further to the spiritual implications. One of the ploys of mandatory tithe proponents - wittingly or unwittingly - has been to keep the conversation revolving around if its an open and shut case of yes or no.

I have longed for us to discuss more expansively and take on the whole of Christian giving, use of money, examples in the scriptural narrative, meaning to the church as a body and as the bride. How, why, what for, when, to whom. The question posed here is but one of the many sub-theme's that should have emanated from that convo, but we simply never got there - or we just hindered from doing so. Whenever there's a crime, the police always look for the money trail. Sometimes, if you follow the money trail, you'll discover the crime.

"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars"
I am not sure of the details of what obtains in the US, but let me touch on what I am familiar with here in the UK. For a Church to be in a position to claim tax back on charitable giving, they have to "register" as a charity. This leads to what any "smart" thinking person would welcome which is tax relief. Makes sense right? No, because it also brings you under the aegis of the charities commission - the state regulator of charities - and you will recieve your tax refunds on "charitable donations", but you become yoked to the state. Subject to its laws. tbc.

Daa.y.uum!

I'm trying to get my head around someone taking out a mortgage for say £250'000.00 and then giving the prpoerty away as first fruits.

It simply beggars belief. Or maybe I should say you'll be a beggar if you believe that. Ah!

People are wicked. Chei. And there are those that would take it without batting an eyelid. And refuse to give it back even if they knew. Spiritual deception is soooooo real!

But seriously, Christ is the Firstfruits. Think on that.

God bless (with or without a monetary offering)
TV

Mavenb0x:
@TV01: The topic is why they find themselves sinning / feeding the flesh. I suggest you may create a new thread for growing in the Spirit

Thanks bro!

Hmmmm. So because I did'nt proffer a pat on the back or give a resounding thumbs up, I am advised to "waka" in no uncertain terms  . The very merest, non-judgemental of quibbles on what was not even an original piece of work. _{Small mercies I suppose, under a different regime, I'd have had to seek permission to post and then have my submissions vetted .}

I - seemingly mistakenly - assumed starting a thread was to seek/engender dialogue? I suppose there's no point in adding the piece also appears to be incomplete as it doesn't explicitly delineate an end point for this struggle with the flesh. Although it does seem to imply a never ending battle?

Anyway, waka I go. Quietly (I dare say, inroads have been made to "dying to self" ). And I promise I won't make a huge fuss, secretly hoping forumites will laud me, extoll the qualities of my body of work and beseech me to stay. Then stay and post like both the printing press and qwerty are personal patents.

I do apologise - sis'.

God bless
TV

fellabrims:
Please, No ROOM for crticism [/b]O!

Aw shucks. There's usually at least one naysayer and I guess in this instance its going to be me  . Now don't get me wrong. Please, I loved the strip. Simple, informative humourous and to the point.

^{But to allege no room for criticism ke? Are we not on NL? and amongst some of the planets most hardened religionists. Here, there is always room for criticism - and of the harshest kind. Just joshing  !}

But seriously, I quite like the cartoon. And I feel most will be able to correctly extrapolate, but I think it is somewhat incomplete.

[b]Galatians 5:16-17
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Galatians 6:8
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

My point? I don't see the flip side illustrated. Subduing the flesh is only one half of the equation.

God bless
TV

Hi JeSoul,

Please, do go there. I would like as much practical, theoretical and spiritual knowledge and wisdom be gleaned from SOS on this thread. I'd like christians to look beyond the surface and find out how much they can really learn.

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

I'll try and explore further if time permits.

Oh wow. You're a proper Boston cat for real lol. I'm pretty much a westside dweller. When I worked in Watertown for 2 yrs I considered moving permanently to the city but it was going to cost an arm and a foot to live in a decent area. I'm back to Worcester now and frequent downtown mostly for concerts and above all to see the Celtics play at tha garden! lol. Beantown is just as vibrant, some major upgrades were done about the Seaport hotel (I forget the name of the street now) and it is so downright gorgeous it should be a crime. I have some pictures if you'd like to see . . .

Yeah lived it, loved it. Fond, fond memories. I was familiar with the 'burbs too. Most of the indigenes lived out of town, so I was always out there for bbq's parties and stuff.


I recieved a really glossy picture book as one of my leaving presies. Hancock Tower - and yes I made it to the top floor restaurant - etc. Love to see some up to date pics, but we mustn't get tagged as derailers 0! But then I guess it is your thread right?



God bless
TV

ttalks:
Anyone who's been following this thread ought to know who this is . . . . .

lol!
Could it be our friendly neighbourhood religionist aka Tonye-Tongue-Twister-The-Tyrannical-Tithe-Teacher?
And could he be Seriously-Seeking-Supporting-Scrolls??

Have a safe journey back to home.

davidylan:
Abstinence is possible but very difficult i must admit.

Quite frankly I disagree. Lots of people abstain for lifestyle or purely religious regions without that much difficulty. How much more those who believe God and avail themselves of the grace available in Christ Jesus, seeing the divine in that state.

I admit the ability to control different carnal desires may vary from individual to individual, but grace is available. Its not so much - IMHO - giving up the desire as it is the "desire to give it up"

I don't want this to be personalised like Sis' Mavens position was, however my personal walk is something I cannot deny. I am not a virgin - I always feel a tinge of regret when saying that - but I have been voluntarily celibate for over a decade. I am a single Christian male. That is just par for the course. I don't feel or assume particular favour, blessing or even "anointing" !

The peace of mind, the strength of purpose and the the clarity of thought it affords me are priceless.

God bless
TV

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg5305235#msg5305235 date=1263377086]1. I have called KunleOshob to come up and tell everyone here why he feels Tithing isnt relevant today. the last time i beckoned again, he claimed dump

2. I called Zikkyy to tell us too, he resorted to other vocations

3. I called ttalks and till date that dude scampered

4. Chukwudi44 is no where to be found

5. My sister Jesoul could not say anything either about the topic

Ask them they'll say [U] THEY BELIEVE IT ISNT RELEVANT ANYMORE[/U] ok prove it!? they form dump. what sort of folks are these i wonder. If you're bold enuff then dont do any copy and paste from the internet but comeup and give a tentative evidence and case as to your claim. simple![/quote]Quite simply because the only injunction to Christians is to give as you are willing and able and with good cheer. Not by compulsion, not of necessity. And almost always to satisfy real physical need.  

Oya, spiritualise it. "Tithe is the basis of Gods convenant for prosperty" or "if you don't tithe, you'll be tight" or perhaps "you are robbing God".

Or claim it's based on Abraham, but enforce it using Moses. Say its freewill but charge it using the law - the same law he fulfilled and in any event does not engender righteousness. Claim curses if one does not comply - the very curse he died to free us from.

There are only two reasons to preach tithe as binding on Christians. 1. You are misguided 2. You are mischevious. Which one na?

God bless
TV

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg5305117#msg5305117 date=1263375701]When one say the Law of God, it simply means a written document/ rule that covers all the guidelines, precepts, ordinances, commandments and instructions as given by God. Adam do not eat from this tree, for the day you do you'll die is a Instruction from God thus a LAW from GOD.[/quote]Tongue-Twister, ah, ah. You managed to both lie and contradict yourself in the space of one short sentence.

1. The law of God is written in hearts
2. Which written law did God give Adam?
3. Was the Law of Moses not given by God to the Israelites? Or did Moses act as lawgiver?

Tithe-Trumper, abeg now. All this your convoluted reasoning and implausible unscriptural assertions dey give person headache. Surely you occupy the space where religionist and bureaucrat merge in perfect synthesis. Bro' Donnie of CE has been usurped!

Re-interprete, re-word, re-assign, or re-ascribe all you like. Speak Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and assorted languages of antiquity, you will not prevail. Gods truth on Christ Jesus will keep His people free. 1 Corinthians 7:23 - You are bought with a price; be not you the servants of men.

Take their time by making them attend endless "church" functions and attend to "church" business. Fraudulently take their money with bogus applications of tithing and offering scriptures. Take thier allegiance by making them become "members" and submitting to the MOG, Gods people will be freed from the likes of you.

You've been outed already. Ioften thought you were at least sincere - if misguided - but your sly attempt to buttress your position by wilfully mis-applying Greek/Aramaic leaves you unclothed - and I hope ashamed. You are not the first to attempt that and for almost the same cause if I recall.

God bless & keep His own
TV

JeSoul:
Most preachers do not even preach from it, I guess they are scared of something lol. Personally, I think its a fantastic book with incredibly great poetry.

 Some christians choose to view it as symbolism, God's love to man, others (myself included) as love between a man and woman. I'm curious as to which side of the isle NL christians sit on. Please have your say . . .

Hi JeSoul & discussants,

This poster sits on neither side. Application wise, instuction wise and in other ways, I concur with both. But revelationally, I see Christ and His bride. And more sinisterly, those that could easily be mistaken for her, outnumber her and war against her.

How's Beantown? I have fond memories.

God bless
TV

Mavenb0x:
In my opinion, SeanT21, it's easier for women to abstain only if they are virgins. If men and women ever get disvirgined (some people will argue that men don't get disvirgined. Whatever. I refer to their first experience of a sexual nature, so to speak), I believe in that case it's generally easier for men to abstain than for women to abstain from further sex. But then, it's just my opinion. After all, I'm a virgin 'cos I'm not yet married (Yeah I'm proud of saying that anywhere ).

Hmmmm. I have a friend who makes the same claim. Women "having tasted" he claims are less able to hold themselves. As much as I am loathe to believe this, a lot of what I've seen makes me wonder. In any event my empirical knowledge is at best limited and I would'nt want to make any categorical statements. Is it simply suggesting women are the weaker sex?

And so you should be, in a humble way of couse . Well done, I sincerely applaud you.

God bless

TV

dgreatrock:
Please i want to know if it is possible to truly, totally abstain from having sex before and or when married.

Absolutley.

However, I don't answer as a "Religionist", rather as one who places his faith in the grace of God in Christ Jesus. My personal use of the word religionist is perjorative. Appreciate yours or any others may not be.

Not to digress however, with faith and by grace its almost ridiculously easy. Again that is my personal experience. After the first few months, its like forgoing say chocolate - sorry girls - or any purely physical desire/thing.

Important not to set the wrong atmosphere or place yourself in a contrary environment though.

Being single, I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of a married couple as the dynamic is somewhat different. But if they agree !

God bless
TV

simmy:
quick question, assuming i have a genuine desire to serve God and start a church/ministry, how do you intend i source for funds to run the church?

It would be good to start by allying the "genuine desire" with a proper understanding.

There is only one church of God in Christ Jesus, and I'm sure many will recall the Lord as saying "He will build His church".
That church has been started - founded upon The Rock - with the blueprint disseminated by the early apostles.

So point 1, no matter how genuine or deep your desire to serve God - in Christ Jesus - you can't start a church. Unless of course its your own church, which is essentially what most places that call themselves churches these days are, man-made and run religious organisations. That is not to say that there are not members of the body of Christ within them.

I've had occassion to touch on the organisational nature of these places before. Just overlay the imperatives of any man-made organisation and you will see an exact fit. Nowhere in the scriptural narrative is "church" an organisation or did church require "funding" to exist or to grow.

The church - or ecclessia - are the called out individuals comprising the body of Christ through the ages in heaven and earth. 101'ish I agree, but you'd be surprised at the number of people that would claim to know that and yet not be able to differentiate it from what typically obtains.

Just to be clear, the church does not require funding. Organisations do. Money is utilised by the body to meet genuine welfare needs. Pretty much everything else is add-on by your "Friendly Neighbourhood Religionist".

So let me sew two maybe three threads with one post.

1. There are not too many churches as some would posit - there is merely a blight on the landscape of for the most part shabby 4th rate religious organisations that choose to call themsleves churches - and of course wilfully misappropriate things of the "True Church". But why worry? "The Lord knows those who are His".

2. Strictly speaking, there is no counterfeight Christianity, just like there is no "false truth". Lots of things that try and mimick it, co-opt parts of it or even mislead you about it, but you'll only find Christ in His Kingdom, with His church. The historical aspects of Christ and the Church whilst noteworthy, are in truth pointless. Christ is living - one can know Him now, rendering the need for an absolute knowledge and understanding of history, languages, customs or anything else irelevant. A small point to clarify. Where there truly only 4 gospels? or was it 30? maybe more or maybe less? If you know Christ here and now, it won't matter - and if it did, the Holy Spirit would reveal even that to you. Eyes on the prize please people.

3. For the appeasers, i.e. those that would rationalise the divinity of Christ. Ooops sorry out of space !

God bless
TV

KunleOshob:
@TVO1
How now? Long time how have you been? Hope all is well with you.

I'm well Kunosh. Hope your walk is drawing you closer to Him. On break from a course, so I thought I'd discomfort some religionists for fun! How far?

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg5138800#msg5138800 date=1261133197]I would that you read this note below maybe you'll understand a better notion about tithe to your question 1.

The primary reason for tithing I will say is first worship to a god to acknowledge his/her ownership of everything and as such they are given back all/some portion. Some ancient writings say it could also mean an act of appreciation , a solicitation , an enquiry , an appeasement to a deity. Whichever way its been seen, it should be appreciated a fact that this act mean more of an ancestral standard to a law. How do I mean, in the Babylonian scrolls which preceded Abrahamism or Judaism none ever revealed that they were commanded to tithe under any given law, neither was it recorded that the first tithers- Cain and Abel (Bikkurim) ever did so based on compulsion as the supposedly law era gave.
Howbeit the introduction of this ancestral act in the era of Judaism (Moses’ time) was never given as a law per se, but the law only showed how this act was to be administered.[/quote]Tonye-t you can lie. Spiritualise it all you like by calling it worship. A disciple of Christ knows that he is only a steward. You cannot give to someone what is His and not yours in the first place. Christian imperatives are far higher. We are not law-bound, but spirit led. God forbid that bondservants of Christ become slaves of men.


[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg5138800#msg5138800 date=1261133197]Question 2. Did he give it once or always, read this!

Tithing – Once in a Lifetime or Daily or Weekly or Monthly or Yearly?

- Following the scriptures, Cain and Abel were recorded to have given once, maybe they gave more, we don’t know unless we judge following John. 21 : 25
- Abraham was recorded to have given once.
- Jacob was recorded once to have promised giving tithe
- Moses’ time and the Nation of Israel introduced it into the law and did not specify a time for ma’aser safe for the ‘year of tithing- once every third year’. Scholars say they practiced it after every harvest (time of increase)which varied by tribes and calendars
- Jephthah was recorded once to have promised Bikkurim and he fulfilled the promise. (Judg.11…)
- Religious sect in the NT strictly adhered unto the Terumat that it was given just about every week if not every day but wrongly on hypocritical grounds.

Ma’aser is an act of worship and one should give as unto God and not unto any religious order except we choose to follow religion (which to me is still not wrong -2Tim.3:16, James.1:7) . The importance is that tithing should be made on the ground of worship / appeasement / appreciation / solicitation / enquiry. One who choses to give once in a life time is same as the other who choses to give daily, weekly and so on for he who gives should do so as unto the Lord and not to Man (Eph. 6:7).[/quote]Falsehood upon falsehood. Go and sleep jo. Your whole life, entire being and existence are consecrated and if required consumed as a woirship offering to God. your "beggarly" tithing as worship notion is nothing more than limp man-made religion and pointless ritual. Your theology is all born of man, blood and flesh. Stop already!

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg5138800#msg5138800 date=1261133197]Question 3: Pentecostal Pastors are not after the order of the levites but the order of the Christ who followed after Melchisedek, read it![/color][/font]


Tithing – The Priesthood Significance

Through the bible, God’s relationship with man has followed a pattern and this pattern has standards that both parties must maintain for a true relationship
What were this patterns?:
one of such was that there must be a Priest who mediates between God and Man (read.Heb.7:17-20)Mechisedek was the first to assume this office of which Job did the same (Job.1:5), thereafter Abraham (Gen.18:20-33),Abraham’s lineage and then to Jacob’s and later to Moses and the trail followed until Jesus’s time. What made this priestly office unique was the fact that they gave offerings as a means of worship/relationship and they offered sacrifices which were meant to make atonement for sins, they taught the people how to relate with God and Man.
Again, One practice the bible noted that some of these princes/priests did was the act of receiving offerings, take for example Melchisedek received offering, Aaron and the priesthoods received offerings as Moses instituted, both Jesus (Lk.7:37), Paul and Peter received offerings too.

Now Melchisedek in Retrospect:

Jesus was made a priest after the order of melchisedek, Jesus Christ was a priest after Melchisedek and Melchisedek received offering, what then is expected of Jesus Christ?. This order could be compared as unto Aaron (as melchisedek) and the levites (as Christ)-Heb.7:16, Aaron received it under the law; likewise the levites took it from the people and gave it to the High priest whom Aaron fell into.
Today when we give tithe, the clergies after the order of Christ receive it and offer prayers of blessings. refer Gen. 18:19. And he (Melchisedek) blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth. Read Hebrews.6, 7,8 [/quote]Ah, ah! Simply wretched and mischevious. There is only one High Priest in this dispensation. The One who is Higher, Holy and undefiled. We are all priests and kings to boot. Your wilful delineation of types of clergy after Christ is nothing short of blasphemy.

Bobo whats your motivation? Apart form Filthy lucre that is?

Truly men say that religion and politics are the cause of all the worlds wars/problems etc. While I do not subscribe to worldy sayings in their entirety, there're often nuggets of truth contained therein.

The politicians that are bedeviling this land and the religionists that are bewitching it are one and the same. Surely God will judge.

TV

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=203250.msg5139684#msg5139684 date=1261141038]>>>Matthew.23:23 - Jesus said unto the Hypocrites, practise mercy [yes], practise faithfulness [yes], practise Justice [yes], and i say do not neglect to practise Tithe [yes]

Zikkyy, maybe i am yet to show you any "senseful" post because my posts seem contrary to your free-choiced tithing, which the above passage doesnt not validate. [/quote]Aimed at those under the law by One who was Himself under it. It's noteworthy that Jesus who was born under, lived under and perfectly fulfilled the law never paid tithe. It was not money in the first instance - as evidenced by the verse you quoted. Its also noteworthy, that actually paying tithe has little bearing on righteousness, as does not paying it.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=203250.msg5139738#msg5139738 date=1261141471]Beautiful, just beautiful, now prove to me that TITHING IS A JEWISH LAW. or you'll remain the hypocrite![/quote]No, you prove its a Christian Law, which you are claiming directly or indirectly. And if it is, what was the point of the written code being fulfilled and done away with as I noted earlier? Is there a canon of laws for Christians? and if there are, please enunciate them?

God bless
TV

noetic15:
This is irrelevantly dogmatic. Tithing is biblical. . . , and there are also biblical precedents. The bone of contention is whether or not tithing is a compulsory injunction.
No its not. . .but does that make tithing criminal. . .NO.

Biblical meaning what? That it is contained within the scriptural narrative and therefore, acceptable, good or binding?
There are precedents for many things in the bible. Per your use of the word "Biblical" and my response above, what exactly is your point?

Their is no bone of contention. Tithing is not compulsory, but it is of course permissable. Little more than a cursory grasp of scripture will show that it is not a NT notion and rather pointless as a practise, superseeded as it were by something much more glorious.

Not sinful, not criminal, but at best lacking true insight. However the way it is sometimes peddled as compulsory with curses for failure to comply certainly is.

noetic15:
Tithing by Abraham reflects honour to God. is honouring God now a pointless venture?

Before Abraham was, He was.
Another twist? Tithing is now a matter of honouring God? Biblical abi?

noetic15:
You have no understanding of the inherent truths in xtianity or a relationship with God. There is nothing that u have that should be so scared for u, that u cannot honour God with.
That explains why God demanded Isaac for sacrifice and Abraham obliged.

So a Christian relationship with God is about honouring Him with your worldly possessions?
So honour = tithing = Gods demand for sacrifice?

A compulsory 10% maybe a sacrifice, but it is not an honour to the almighty. An optional 10% may well be, but so would an optional 9% or 11%. As a one-off, frequently, infrequently. Can God be honoured without a tithe or without giving material things to Him?

noetic15:
Tithing remains optional. . . , but all saints MUST honour God with all that they have.

Small, small. The saints of God, the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ have nothing they call their own. As its all held in trust. Everything is His. As you learn to know, hear, and trust Him, you'll know where, when, to whom and on what to spend that entrusted in your care.

I pray you are not bound, either by compulsion or option. He came to set the captives free.

God bless
TV

noetic15:
there is a lot of sense in the pro-tithing argument too.

Sorry sir, doctrine is not dereived on a "makes sense" basis or based on a "strong argument" - be that on the seeming merits of the case, or the force with which it is made.

noetic15:
tithing remains an optional thing

At best. But if properly understood, one would realise it misses the point - so much so as to be pointless.

noetic15:
but every xtian must be financially commited to the spread of the gospel.

Perhaps one of the biggest errors/untruths in Christendom. The gospel does not require money to spread. Although, religious - or any - organisations require money in order to survive, grow and dominate.

Needless to say, the error above is to a great extent supported by and tied too the deceptive teaching around tithing.

God bless
TV

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4845711#msg4845711 date=1257162599]"If a Blind man lead another the both will fall into a dish" [/quote]Not content with butchering scripture, Tonye-t then attempts to murder the queens English. Dayuum ! Apa!

One of the biggest myths and most abused mantras in "christendom" is "it takes money to spread the gospel". Closely related to "it takes money to run the church". Assertions nowhere found in or anyway backed up by scripture. Other close relatives are "salaried church employees" or "full time paid pastors". All false and at best showing a wilful ignorance or disregard for the inherent simplicity of scriptural narrative. And anyone with even a modicum of insight or discernment will see clearly that this is all underpinned by the heresy of a mandatory tithe or more subtly, manipulated and/or co-ercerd giving. !

Maranatha Lord Jesus.

TV

Hmmmm!

The turgid prose
The torturous obsfuscation
The swift descent into souless invective
The relentless drive, used to weary the opposition into submission
The preternatural ability to befuddle by making misleading and aimless tributary theme's
The voluminous output that makes one wonder, na full-time job? Is there more than one? Abi supernatural don enter?

There can be only one !

_{Fond ke? Like one is of toothache!}

viaro:
and if it wasn't that you and TV01 are fond of her, you should have known better.

Evening @viaro, I thought you were new here? How would you be aware of the fact - if indeed it is a fact - that I or anyone else is "fond" of Pilgrim.1? Given your first post on this forum was in early October and Pilgrim.1 hasn't posted since early July, has she?

Sweet dreams 

TV