₦airaland Forum

pilgrim.1:
Christians have a civil responsibility to their political governments.

Did I say they didn't?

pilgrim.1:
If they do not, that should be a 100% clear STAY OUT!

Out of what exactly

pilgrim.1:
And as such, we don't owe no civil or political government any tax - which would be contrary to what is stated in Romans 13.

Another convoluted submission. And I still haven't eaten. First things first my dear !

Daddy-Pastor

Politics and religion (man-made) are the cause of all the worlds conficts.

Listen carefully. The kind of person who gravitates towards the grubby world of politics is the same sort who finds a home in the murky waters of man-made religion.

They are brothers in arms and it was only ever a matter of time till it become open and has always been very clear to those who see. The ho' and the beast. What a lovely couple

Pastor-President

karli4nia:
Brother Tv

If you keep up this ecumenist clap-trap I ain't no brother of yours. You man pleaser! And spell my name right before I e-assault you.

karli4nia:
u lack clarity,with your cynical approach to a positve movement.

Ultimately we shall all see. Then clarity won't be an issue will it.

karli4nia:
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a step.

Like I said Syncretism next. Which holy book is that from? Who wants to journey with you on the train of heresy to spiritul perdition?

karli4nia:
All am basically against is we christians focusing more on our call and quiting the kind of player hating amongs us even with our differences.

We? You & who ?
Playa abi? Nonsense. A thinly veiled attempt at relevence. None of them & none of you are!
The original MOG-Slayer in da house! Wey dem?

If the focus was on God instead of various self-aggrandising blasphemers with "small man" syndrome, hell bent on forcing us to worship as they see fit, we'd have no denominational problems in the first place.

Oya, let me humour you. What do you suggest exactly?

1. Catholicism ~ After all, Pope benny seems to think non-Catholics are disqualified from the faith.

2. Pentecostalism ~ Which gives us the option of bad hair and clothes of the poorest imaginable taste or veneration of men (and women), which is little more than modern day temple worship with human mediators.

3. Anglicanism ~ I don't think anyone is sure exactly what that is?

4. Some formula based mixture of the above 9and the 30'000+ other denominations?

5. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The Lord knows those who are His.

So once again HELL NO!

As you can see, Moses was way ahead of his time. The first man to have a BlackBerry !

OLAADEGBU:
Moses was not married to two wives at the same period , the Ethiopian woman (Cushite otherwise nubian precisely)

(I wonder how many lobbies I can upset with that one? Black, Jewish, Womens, etc )

The mixing of the Holy and the profane .

In this age of wholesale blasphemy, hereticism and preening man-made religious structures, the best you can come up with is ecumenism?

Presumably, syncretism is next on the agenda? Roll on one world religion. Actually, it's a great idea, get them all together then The Lord can consume them at once.

Every man to his tent.

Ecumenism ko? Owambe ni?

Religionist bunkum.

Starter for 10 anyone !

What's cookin'? TV is ravenous !

Analytical:
Hmmmhh!! I thought you two were discussing tithing! But I get confused the more, after all "the way of a man with a maid. . . who can understand?" No be me talk that one o, na Solomon (Prov 30 vs 18-19).

Abeg bro' don spoil my show . _{If we 'gree, maybe you can be best man and TayoD can give the sermon !}

pilgrim.1:
I'm waiting on you to oblige me simple enough answers to the few questions I offered. But if that is not necessary because you would rather not, then I'll take some time over the weekend and post something more in addition to what I previously did. Fair enough?

Fair enough.

pilgrim.1:
I'll do so - no bother. Following the request above.

Fairer still.

pilgrim.1:
there are some others . . . kncok them twice over and let water gush from their heads - then I might put on my aprons!

No problem, consider it done. So what's for dinner ? _{And presumably I won't have to digest one of your lengthy tomes before I eat ?}

God Bless
TV

Morning Pilgrim.1,

Are you going to post something we can discuss, or are you trying to set some kind of record for a "meaningless words uttered before lunchtime"?

I'd just say for now that people should be encouraged to tithe. It is not presented as a LEGALISTICALLY MANDATED or COERCED exercise, or a COMPULSION for the Christian. You'd be simply amazed how God doesn't FORCE it upon His children, but yet declares it as part of our New Covenant worship. That is why I started off by asking just two simple questions to help us think on this:

Regards a statement in your post - #1067 - above, and particularly the part highlighted in red, would you be so kind as to explain in detail - and no we are not talking doctorate thesis ! - exactly how "God declares tithing as part of NCW"

pilgrim.1:
I don't know - we don't share the same room!

What have I told you about women taking the lead ? If you are angling for a date, I suggest you show more Sarah and less Eve. By the way, can you cook ?

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Thank you for keeping it simple this time around.

Thank you. But that's at best a trite observation. In absolute terms, I always keep it simple. In relative terms - to you that is - I'm a paragon of simplicity, in pretty much every way !

pilgrim.1:
I simply wanted to know what you see in the WORD; and not what you feel about the question.

Not really, your approach is one of loaded teasers. If the word was your concern, you would quite simply quote and expound it as you understand and let me respond. If you post questions, I'll respond to questions, if you post scripture I'll respond to scripture. Your monolectic approach means you always insist on framing the discussion on your own terms. And in a most harping, mean-spirited and supercillous way I might add  .

So your question re "types" says nothing to me about NTC life. But still I attempted to humour you and respond as posed, whilst at the same time outlining my position. If that displeases you, tough. Heat, kitchen my dear.

I see giving as primarily driven by need (and to bless). One does not say "I'm giving money - directly - to God in/as worship, just like one wouldn't slaughter a goat. I understand there are some who share their food with household idols. Tell me, do the idols eat it? So I don't think my use of the term "pagan" was far off the mark.

So Acts 17v25 is indeed core to what we are discussing. And you are being the queen of assertive denials to say otherwise.

Further John 4v24-25 introduces the concept of worshipping God in spirit and in truth. James 2:15 talks about ministering to those destitute of daily need; physically, not in word but in truth and in deed.

You yourself introduced this verse;
Hebrews 13:16 - But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

This is clearly saying that an act of kindness or sharing (communicating, giving) to others in need is considered a sacrifice. Is that directly to God? or is God the recipient of your "good turn". So if giving (or doing good to others) is worship, and is a sacrifice, what does it avail to attempt to classify it and tabulate associated benefits? Man-made religion at it's most dire !

Giving is indeed a worship response, but everything a NTC does out of love for and in obedience too God is. To try and validate or add import to tithing as a worship response is spin.

Your needless recouse to taxonomical giving is - and I repeat - mindlessly ritualistic at best. And no doubt cover to coerce the unaware amongst God's people to assume that giving to ministers is de rigeur and blessed without any consideration to context.

I guess I got out of the wrong side of bed this morning huh?

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim;

You asked this;

pilgrim.1:
1.
. . . that there are NO DISTINCTIONS in types of giving (nothing at all to distinguish them)?

And later this;

pilgrim.1:
The question is simple: Are there different types of giving, or all giving are the same?

To which I responded thus;

TV01:
Reasons, times, occassions, attitude even, all underpinned by need - or to a lesser degree to bless - but I don't see types or the need for them. Neither do I see that the types generate uniquely distinct blessings unavailed by those who do not give to type or not all the outlined types.

I have made it very clear, that I see need as the primary driver. I don't eliminate giving to bless, but I see precedence on the basis of need.

What is difficult about that ?

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

TV01:
I don't believe I said that. I said giving is worship, and responding to need is worship. I don't believe God is directly worshipped with material things.

For you to say v25 above has no baring on giving and how we worship God sounds like an assertive denial to me .

So, God is not worshipped with things. So to try and directly worship God with material things - a goat, wood, money - is at best mindlessly ritualistic and pagan. In as much as we worship God with our giving, it's through our response to need (or too bless). Happy now?

The rest of your last post was just rant. I'll excuse myself from responding.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim, Haven't I tried to keep this uncluttered and simple? Okay.

There you go again. TV01, in my first question in this fresh discussion, I did NOT ask you for any of the following:

         . . . I did not ask you many questions about REASONS
         . . . I did not ask you many questions about TIMES
         . . . I did not ask you many questions about OCCASIONS
         . . . I did not ask you many questions about ATTITUDE EVEN
         . . . I did not ask you many questions about whether they are UNDERPINNED BY NEED
  and . . . I did not ask you many questions about what GENERATES UNIQUELY DISTINCT what-nots!

The one simply straight-forward question I asked was this:

         . . . are you arguing: that there are NO DISTINCTIONS in types of giving (nothing at all to distinguish them)?

Is there anything ambiguous about this;

but I don't see types or the need for them.

Is it wrong to clarify answers somewhat ? Are you actually reading what I write? or merely looking for opportunity to vent?

Scroll up and see what I quoted in yours. In regards to NEED, you had said in that connection: "As all giving does that." My simple question was and is:

No I didn't. 4get_Me suggested that the first "type" of giving he outlined suggested liberality. I merely said all giving does that. Please take time to read me right, or simply ask what I mean.

Indeed you said exactly this - "You can’t worship God with things, that’s just pagan."

If you now turn round to say that 'giving is worship', what then was the idea behind your thought that worshipping God with things is pagan in connection with the question of giving? Is one's giving not part of worship? - and that was the question I asked you:

        . . . that there is no verse at all (NT and OT) that marks out our giving as part of our worship?

Why do you make statements out of hand and then complain when you're asked questions on them, TV01?

Please add "directly" before things. I included that in reponse to your question #3.  What I was refering to was Acts 17:25. In any event it doesn't make sense to read it as both. Especially in light of what I wrote about giving (but not directly to God & in response), being part of worship.

Yes Miss, giving is part of worship. In repsonse to a need (or to bless). And yes, there are verses that attest to that. Harder than a blind date in a dark place ! Patience TV, patience.

Things will stall if you see something that is obviously out of step with what has gone before and then swoop on it from a great hight. First, it's in all liklihood an error. Second, an error in my post doesn't in itself prove anything in yours.

Let me be more direct with you: Does God bless a giver over those who do not give?

I'll say this, God blesses givers (motivation and attitude being right). To say universally that he blesses those who do over those who don't ignores circumstances. Making the distinction of thoase who don't because they cannot and those who don't because they will not. And I'd also consider it in relative vs absolute terms.

The reason why I'm asking this question is because you seem to be pushing the idea that people can give nonchalantly or indifferently - that if they don't give, then God still responds to their non-giving in the same way He does to those who give.

I am not pushing the idea of nonchalant giving. How does that mean anything in practical terms? Perhaps you should ask if you are proclaiming purely calculated giving with an eye on potential returns.

If people don't give to expect blessings in return, what then is the meaning of the Bible stating this about seed sown:

2 Cor. 9:10 -- "Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness" ??

Mayhaps I was right about your proclamation. Fruit abounds to one's account for gracious giving. That's not to say that it is necessarily to be recieved here and now or even in kind. God promises to supply needs.

Even if one limits it to money. How does Paul exhort the rich to give in Timothy? And to what earthly/heavenly benefit? Are you suggesting that the Macedonians subsequently became mega-rich having given beyond their means? Or were in material terms definitely better off than they were before? Trying to quantify everything monetarily is at best mistaken.

I do hope you'd aim to be uncluttered and not make statements that you don't hope to be queried about. If you'd not like to be asked questions, then it's well that you simple reserve your comments to yourself and say nothing at all.

I have no problem if anyone seeks clarification, but to take something that is obviously in dissonance to what has been said before, is out of context or otherwise misread - especially when the point is turned into an epic - is no way to progress.

God bless
TV

Thanks fro the warning, I'll steer well clear and read all about it in the lengthy thread on the ensuing traffic chaos !

kainos76:
Are you tired of organized religion?

Yes!

kainos76:
Do you desire a relational church in which you can freely share your struggles with other believers without fear of being condemned or judged?

Yes! please!

kainos76:
Do you seek a deeper intimacy and commitment to Christ and not “Church”?

Yes 0!

kainos76:
Send an E-mail to isibor518@yahoo.com for true fellowship.

I'm not leaving where I am in order to do so, or before I do, I need to see/hear more. Post for all and sundry to see!

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
1.
. . . that there are NO DISTINCTIONS in types of giving (nothing at all to distinguish them)?

Reasons, times, occassions, attitude even, all underpinned by need - or to a lesser degree to bless - but I don't see types or the need for them. Neither do I see that the types generate uniquely distinct blessings unavailed by those who do not give to type or not all the outlined types.

pilgrim.1:
2.
. . . that the only thing that marks out GIVING is a NEED?

I have made it very clear, that I see need as the primary driver. I don't eliminate giving to bless, but I see precedence on the basis of need.

pilgrim.1:
3.
. . . that there is no verse at all (NT and OT) that marks out our giving as part of our worship?

I don't believe I said that. I said giving is worship, and responding to need is worship. I don't believe God is directly worshipped with material things.

pilgrim.1:
4.
. . . that giving does not bring about any blessing at all to the giver?

How many times have we touched on that? Can you be asking that in all fidelity? Never the less, I'll respond. Yes giving engenders blessings. But giving motivated purely by return - especially earthly and in kind - is not worship.

_{You realise it will degenerate if you insisst on ascribing things to me, posing pointedly leading questions and endlessly appealing to OT types - when the NT is clear and concise - to drag things all over the place?}

God bless
TV

I quote the body of 4get_Me's post (#600)

Fellowship and Partnership Offerings

Our giving is not "simply give" - read Gal. 6:6 and Heb. 13:16 (giving that is called "communicate" and "sacrifices". The word "communicate" in those verses is the same in the Greek [koinōneō and koinōnia] from which we get our words "fellowship" or "partnership". This is one type of "fellowship giving/offering" or "partnership giving/offering." Read Phil. 4:14-16 as an example of this type of giving - the fellowship offerings with which we support the ministers of the Gospel.

You'll find again that in I Tim. 6:18, two words are used there - "ready to distribute [eumetadotos], willing to communicate [koinōnikos]." Not really different from this class of giving, but then the words point to the spirit of liberality - being liberal at giving.

Worship Collections/Offerings

1 Cor. 16:2 - "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." This is not the type of giving expressed in Gal. 6:6 and Heb. 13:16. This is points to our Christian expression of financial giving on the first day of the week - our Sunday worship activity. We ought not confuse these types of giving and just indiscreetly give however we think fit. Infact, when you read from verse 1 in I Cor. 16, you see it is the usual practice (and the reasons) of the churches founded by the apostles, not only in Corinth, but as far as unto Galatia as well. I have reasons from I Cor. 4:17 to believe that it was the normal practice of every church in the apostolic age.

Benevolence to Poorer Folk

Distinct from the first two types of giving is that of being benevolent towards people - within and outside the Church. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35) seems to be the driving impetus of their liberality in this way. We are to give to everyone who has need, both collectively or individually. This is exemplified in Gal. 2:10 - "Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do." Alms giving also falls within this category, and Jesus made reference to it - Matt. 6:3-4.

Tithes and Special Offerings

There are personal matters that each Christian communicates between himself/herself and God. Jesus said this type of transaction should be private (or secret, depending on version - cf. Matt. 6:6). Now, why tithes? It is not condemned in the NT, neither is it viewed as evil as might have been supposed by those averse to it. This is a transaction that I personally take upon my self to give a designated portion of my income "as God hath prospered [me]" (I Cor. 16:2). This is what I lay up in store at designated times, and based on commensurate prospering that God allots me. There are special transactions that Christians have with God that no one else makes their business - that is where my tithes and special offerings come in.

I have also re-read and have this to say.

Fellowship and Partnership Offerings

Whether you call it communicate, distribute, share or sacrifice - or dash even - it is giving.

As I have always maintained, giving is primarily in response to need (and also to bless).
If it is for those reasons, why would it be termed “indiscreet”?

Now, regards ministers of the gospel. All are priests, and all minister (obviously within the context of experience, maturity and need). Ministers of the gospel are not salaried or financially supported as a matter of course.

Indeed, supporting ministers is the exception rather than the rule, and is only necessary, where the nature of the work prevents the minister from earning their own living or othersise supporting themselves and their family. This does not stop brethren appreciating those who minister by sharing – be that money, time, resources, expertise or any other beneficial thing – with them. Again, this would be with an eye on need – of both parties and of others in the congregation.

The idea that giving to a minister - even if your need or someone else’s is greater - as God will surely bless you for it, is unthinking, unbalanced and unbiblical.

So again, the reason to give to ministers is primarily due to need (or to bless, which should not cause you hardship or overlook a pressing need elsewhere).

And it in no way points to a spirit of liberality. As all giving does that. Pointless ad-libbing.

Worship Collections/Offerings

Please read from the beginning of 1 Corinthians 16, the motivation for this collection was need, as it always is. There is no stricture to give on the first day of the week. This totally misses the liberty in Christ. That was a suggested and convenient time and in response to a “need” in Jerusalem. Again, collections are not taken as a matter of course and then labeled “worship response”. Money primarily moves in response to need. Putting money into a collection is not an act of worship in or of itself. Worshipping the Lord with your money is to apply it to need in the body (and without), and secondarily to bless.

Benevolence to Poorer Folk

It is not distinct in it’s driver which is need, it’s reason which is equality/commonality (to address at least basic needs), it’s attitude which is , cheerful, liberal and it’s gamut, which is from little to sacrificial.

And please reference Matthew 25:31-46. The rewards are for succour of the needy, the hurting, the downtrodden and the disenfranchised. Which ties easily in with the Lords two references to tithe a la the weightier matters of the law being love, justice, mercy.

Tithes and Special Offerings

This is were it really ramps up and becomes overly ritualised and needlessly religious(presumably to befuddle the unaware ).

All giving is individual and personal. This bit is so lacking in weight as to be meaningless. The tithe is not condemned, but neither is it mandated. And if one does anything, with any portion of what God has prospered him with, and wants to call that or any personal action a tithe, so what? It doesn’t make it the norm. As I have said a personal voluntary tithe is just that, your business and of no lien on anyone else. 

And please, “Special Offering”, what is that? What motivates that? You can’t worship God with things, that’s just pagan.

In sum, I see nothing here of any real import. Merely the kind ofl thinking, which would bind NTC in when and how to give, robbing them of liberty in Christ. Poor doctrine based on wrong structure or vice-versa.

Just my opinion. And apologies if my tone is a little harsh. But there is nothing there.

I laugh when I hear all these complicated but unconvincing arguments to try and justify a tithe. Either as mandatory with curses, or voluntary with blessings. Funny how the “all things in common approach” is never touched upon, or the broader depth of giving in Acts never broached.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim.1,

Another saga, which totally ignored my questions. This is becoming tedious. In order to progress, may I suggest we do this point by point?

The gentleman as ever, I'll allow you to initiate (but not lead !). I'll trust that you'll keep all questions straightforward and concise, as well as any answers.

If it's ok by you, please say so and ask away. If you have a better idea, fine.

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim,

Morning girl. Hope you are well. Right or wrong side this morning !

You really can talk for Nigeria 0! Anyways, non of your windy assertions change anything and really don't prove your point (do we even know what your point is?).

You refuse to progress this discussion, parking aroung minor issues as a diversionary tactic. No probs. I'll - in my customary manner - answer some questions as posed and respond to some statements you've made and hope we can, although I think you are deriving way to much pleasure from being obtuse

1. Priesthood
There are two orders. Aaronic/Levitical & that of Melchizedek. The latter is superior to the former and Christs is after the latter. Hebrews 7 in part outlines why the difference in order, primarily due to the endless life and unchanging nature (immortal vs. mortal) of MZD. The act of tithing was corollary in symbolising this difference. Not a practice that was in some way an accroutement of Priesthood. Please serve me a double portion of humble pie if I at any point - and totally mistakenly - I alleged any differently.

2. Spoils
I note your gung-ho and rampaging treatise on the spoils. No one has said the spoils don't go to the victor. No one has said spoils cannot in some way be offered as a sacrifice. Please acquaint yourself with a modicum of restraint and try and focus on the main issue dear (or perhaps you couldn't pass an opportunity to trumpet you supposed scholarship huh ? Thank you.

However, Ndipe you're spot on - and I've hinted that tithe does not have to be 10%. We're given to understand that what Abraham offered was 10% (I'm persuaded this is precisely what the original language implies);

If it is not mandatory and if it does not have to be 10%, you render your whole argument meaningless. The NT only talks of this kind of act as "giving".

I'd just say for now that people should be encouraged to tithe. It is not presented as a LEGALISTICALLY MANDATED or COERCED exercise, or a COMPULSION for the Christian.

Please explain why NTC should be encouraged to tithe, when they are exhorted to give (sacrifice), to the point of doing so sacrificially (more than they are able). The spectrum for Christian giving is whole, the reasons for Christian giving are clear and the instances obvious.

Recourse to phrases so broad as to be menaningless - "worship response" being prime - don't alter anything. A NTC that refuse to take kickbacks, fornicate or lie, is offering worship.

You'd be simply amazed how God doesn't FORCE it upon His children, but yet declares it as part of our New Covenant worship.

No, God doesn't force it upon us. The NTC mandate is to give with a cheerful heart, as much as you can, as much as you want even. But to say it is part of NCW is simply untrue. Or maybe I should ask that you kindly show how?

1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?

Here you are being particularly obtuse. Is there any command telling NTC not too give. Is there anything in scripture that would suggest that giving is not part of the Christian lifestyle. If giving is freewill, how can there be a command?

If you are trying to warp the exhortations to bless those who labour as a reading tithe, that speaks volumes about you and possibly your denominational practice, and little or nothing about NTC practice.

2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?

You are very adept at trying to frame the discussion by posing leading questions, but your bias and unsubtlety cry out.

See how you slyly term tithe as "a type of giving". No one disputes the fact that there are blessings for giving, although we may disagree over the hows and whens. You have repeatedly failed to answer the questions "is tithe distinct from giving?", "are there blessing for tithing" based solely on that act", "are these blessings denied those who give, but don't tithe?"

In fact you are so obvious, that it's clear to see where you are working your way towards. But I'll allow you to be hoist by your own petard.

God bless
TV

otolorin:
right now - nothing feels better dan paying my tithe . . . and i aint going back.
it works!

No, it's works!

TayoD:
That seems to be a very verbous way of saying you miss me?

If only you knew mate . There's a paucity of real characters and stimulating conversation in this joint nowadays.

otuwe:
pilgrim this statement is best suited to TV01 because u guys have alot to post to each other.

Why would you say that?

otuwe:
the only thing i have to say is don't call the bible Word of God. bible, scripture and all the likes should be enough to describe it not Word of God. except you're saying the romans are the ones writing God's Word.

in the begining was the Word (the bible was not in existence then) and the Word was with God(am sure He didnt have the Bible) and the Word was God(am sure it wasnt refering to the bible)

the bible is the bible, it is not the word of God.

Christ is the Word incarnate and since He didnt write the Bible, the Bible is not the word. its only a spiritual Book.

Even if I refer to the Bible as the word of God, I distinguish it from God The Word (i.e Jesus). Whilst I believe it was inspired by God, it is not God. Apart from some minor things - the bit about Romans? - I see and mostly agree with your point.

Are you also fighting me ? Nah wah for them girls 0! Whatever they believe !

God Bless
TV

_{Pilgrim.1, please 0, don't take this and upside-down the whole thread, or run back-to-back marathons over minor and mostly inconsequential issues. Thanks dear !}

You're still maintaining the same assertive denial and have yet to show precisely from God's Word where you find that idea. This is cleverly saying it in another way - that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "replaced", and that is the one thing I requested you to demonstrate from God's Word. There is nothing to suggest in the Bible that Melchizedek's priesthood has been "REPLACED" as you asserted earlier.

Melchizedek is not our HP. Christ is. Although Christ order is after Melchizedeks in that it is unchanging as He lives forever.

In any event, please spill on why you think the tithe is bound to the High Priesthood.

The bottomline was that Christ's priesthood was not said to have "replaced" the Melchizedek priesthood - and that is what is pivotal here. Quite a few more details were not mentioned about Melchizedek; but for all that, Scripture declares two immutable things:

  (a) God made Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek by an OATH
  (b) Melchizedek is nowhere said to be "DEAD" and "REPLACED" by another priesthood.

You've been trying to make the Melchizedek priesthood a "type" or "pre-figure" of Christ's; whereas God never said so by any hint in Scripture. If He did say so even remotely, I've been asking you to clearly demonstrate the point from Scripture, and not the dribbling you've been offering.

Re (b) above, I asked before what position or in what capacity does Melchizedek function now?
Melchizedek was a type a shadow, the fulfillment is in Christ.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.

Our Lord arose from Judah, where was Melchizedek from? Verse 15 says "in the likeness", likeness being outlined in verse 16 as endless life.

Or are you concluding that Christ = Melchizedek? A straight yes or no would be good, surprising, but good .  

With all due respect, I've studied the entire book of Hebrews - even going back to the constructs of the original language that are available. That the thrust of book as being the excellency of the priesthood of Christ is not in doubt; but that is not the ONLY thing that the book of Hebrews seeks to establish. That He is far superior to angels (ch. 1 & 2); that He is superior to Moses (ch. 3); that His rest supersedes all others and is the true Sabbath (ch. 4); that He is called after the order of Melchizedek by divine oath (ch. 5-7). . . and that the Father disciplines His chidlren (ch. 12), are all matters and more covered in Hebrews.

Well done you!
We can share on the other things some other time, for now please chill on the bragging tip.

You've been trying to make the Melchizedek priesthood a "type" or "pre-figure" of Christ's; whereas God never said so by any hint in Scripture. If He did say so even remotely, I've been asking you to clearly demonstrate the point from Scripture, and not the dribbling you've been offering.

Okay scholar, pray tell if MZD is not a type, pre-figure or shadow, what does MZD represent? And in relation to the Lord?

But NOWHERE is there the slightest hint to your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"!! If after all that have gone in my arguments, you now see the Melchizedek priesthood as an "UNCHANGING" priesthood, where then does the Bible teach that the "unchanging priesthood" has been "REPLACED"?!? What is the basis for "REPLACING" an "UNCHANGING priesthood"? Where in God's Word is that fallacy taught at all? Where are the verses that say so?

The unchanging - which is key to understanding the MZD HP and it symbolism - is that because he has not beginning of days nor end of life, there is continuity of the one, not continouous changing as in the death of mortal man appointed by the law, as in the Levitical/Aaronic Prieasthood. It in no way suggests that MZD is/or ever was our HP. Please take time to concisely outline what you are saying here? Thanks.

Without being subtle, could you please show me where it is written that Abraham had any idea of the Levitical priesthood? How could he have been "acknowledging" the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood when in fact there's nothing to indicate that he knew ANYTHING about the Levitical priesthood?

I long since learned that subtlety doesn't work with you. So I'll resort to a blunt instrument !

Who said Abraham had any idea? I clearly said he probably didnt. It became apparent as God's plan unfolded and was clearly understood by the writer of Hebrews, and those of us at this time in unfolding redemptive purpose. Hence the exposition. His act of tithing  - wether he realised it or not at the time - is pointer to the superiority of the MZD HP as scripture testifies.

The reason why you find the questions odd is because you pretend to be reading issues "from the back" and yet not really doing so. If we had to go "back" to the account in Genesis, nothing there suggests that Abraham could have been trying to compare and/contrast Melchizedek's priesthood to ANY OTHER; let alone coming up with the idea that Abraham in himself "was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority" of the Melchizedek priesthood! If English means anything to you, the word "superiority" is used when making comparison between two factors or values! Abraham could not have been making any contrast between Melchizedek and Levi (the latter of which he knew nothing about) before he could "demonstrate/acknowledge" that Melchizedek was "superior"! Who was Abraham comparing Melchizedek with?!?

Say after me TV is patient, TV is patient  ! I so have your time girl!

You'd have to go back and do a study on both passages in Genesis and Hebrews before making bloviate statements. The basic question here has been: "What prompted Abraham to tithe to Melchizedek?" Was it a "MANDATE". . . "COERCION". . . "COMMAND". . . "FORCE". . or an other legalistic term with which you have been once and again connecting to TITHES and thereby cheating your adulators with all along?

What prompted Abraham to tithe? I have repeatedly said, it was a symbolic action, part of which was done to demonstrate the more excellent nature of the order of MZD of that of Levi. EOS. If peradventure you have an alternative reading, pray tell.

I have never said it was mandated. Indeed, that is not what is in sight here. And lets not miss sight of the facts. Abraham did not tithe his personal possessions or income on an ongoing basis to Melchizedek. It was symbolic.

Apart from yourself,I have no adulators. And I'm doing my best to discourage you. !

Good for you! I'm glad that you can come back in one same post and defeat your own assumption. Just above, you made the case that "Abraham by paying a tithe to Melchizedek was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood"; now you're hardly done with that before swinging your own sword across your middle region by denying the same premise: "And no Abraham himself wasn't doing the contrasting"! You're just boxing shadows, TV01. Neither here nor there. I've offered that you go back and calmly see that you've imprisoned your mind with issues that are not found in the Bible; rather than pedantically and sarcastically try to litter this thread with your inconsistencies.

1. The lesser is blessed by the greater
2. Tithe would be from the lesser to the greater
3. Abraham - as proxy for Levi - tithed to MZD. Once symbollically but significant in demonstrating the greater and lesser priesthoods. So simple when you know how. Can't touch !

God bless
TV

@ Pilgrim,

Up all night were we? Man, you are tetchy today.

I'm in fine fettle and feeling somewhat magnanimous, I'll continue to overlook you rancid vituperation. Maybe it wopuld help if we could clarify some particulars.

Would you be so kind as to summarise your position on tithing.
~ Is it madatory? or is it voluntary?
~ If it's voluntary how does it differ from "giving"?
~ What benefits accrue to tithers that do not to givers?
~ Why do you believe that HP is somehow typified/validated by the paying of a tithe.

Then we can move on to others such as
~ How and who is supposed to recieve tithe in this age like Melchizededk did
~ What happens after that

See short consice posts, no obsfucation, dodgery pokery, upside down Greek or inside out English. Just short concise questions and answers.

I'm happy me !

God bless
TV

@ TayoD,

Is that you? Greetings. Nice, tightly scripted and pertinent post. Looks like the sabbatical has reinvigorated you. You should go away more often, we all should !

God bless bro'
TV

@ Pilgrim,

Morning, lets get back to the discussion .

Please, show me the verse that says that the Melchizedek priesthood has been REPLACED, and it would suffice! You stated it so assertively, and I want you to please show me the verse for that assumption.

Please dear, don't try and use a minor error or omission to prove your point. As ever, I'll humour you.

Both the Levitical/Aaronic & Melchizedical priesthoods/high priesthoods are shadows and types of that which was fulfilled in Christ. Now, (and for the zillionth time ), the latter, is superior to the former, but is not the culmination of Gods plan, this - as is the whole plan of redemption - is fulfilled in Christ.

Now, Christs HP is indeed after the order of Melchizedeks in that it is by an oath, and unchanging in nature  - due to an endless life, not because of what Abraham did - and therefore He continues as HP forever.

Further, Christs HP while of the same order for the reasons stated, has to be considered superior, for Melchizedek is never mentioned as purging our sins, ascending through the heavens or being seated at the right hand of God, to mention a few.

Indeed, one of the main thrusts of Hebrews - as I said earlier - is to highlight the excellency of the Lords High Priesthood, by contrasting the two OT orders and showing how The Lords excells in all areas. I would ask that you revisit ch. 9 to asee the further comparion, this time b/w the Aaronic HP and the Lord as HP. A most beautiful exposition of the culminating day of atonement as shadowed by the HP appointed by law and fulfilled by The Lord.

How unfussy is that ?

Without bias, please answer these questions:

Was Abraham comparing and contrasting between the Melchizedek and Levitical priesthoods? If he wasn't, WHAT exactly was Abraham demonstrating by his tithes to Melchizedek?

In truth, I consider that question rather odd, but in my early morning "Gentlemanly" phase I'll do as you ask.

From the back, Abraham by paying a tithe to Melchizedek was demonstrating/acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedeks priesthood. As the Aaronic/Levitical came from his - Abrahams - loins. Symbollically therefore - and as the lesser is blessed by the greater - it signifies this superiority between the two orders.

It is not some deeply embedded, little known revelation or hidden code to NTC to tithe.

And no Abraham himself wasn't doing the contrasting, he may not even have known the significance of his action, but as the bible says, the prophets of old inquired and searched dilligently, but it was to us they were ministering.

Happy now?

I did not ignore your posts; and I broached my questions based on your assertions. And if you'd be honest, you did not so state or argue that volunatry tithe does not accrue benefits over and above regular giving; rather, you argued that it does not accrue benefits for in the following statements:

Simply not true. I repeatedly and concisely summarised the fact that if you cannot distinguish the benefits or accroutements of voluntary tithing from normal simple giving in response to need - primarily - or to bless, them it is a mute point. I have said this repeatedly, but in your drive to nail me, you picked up on one incidence - after I had repeated it ceaselessly - were I
wasn't as concise, and tried to make that the basis of the discussion.

Likewise the "law-bound" reference to tithing. I made that in response - possibly just the once, and way back in the discussion - to someone that insisted that it was biblically commanded. I have severally stated that the only two basis on which we can champion it are by law or voluntarily. But you have taken this one instance - out of context - and embarked on a screechy harangue claiming I am denouncing tithing as law bound. Pray tell, who is justifying it as mandated by law?

And have I not said - way back and severally - that voluntary tithing as an individual thing is just that, an individual thing. But I don't see any biblical verse that suggests it in some way accrues benefits denied those who simply giver or marks the tither out as superior/more mature.

A simple question I asked from the onset was this: "2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?" You began by evading that question and launching into deflections on issues I never asked you!

That I believe is answered by the above, but I must say that I don't see any biblical writ or need to isolate tithing as a "type" of giving, again for reasons I have often stated. There are occassions and reasons to give, but the classification into types - and I revisited 4get_me's outline - still sounds needlessly religious.

Hopefully you got out of the right side of bed this morning !

God bless
TV

. . . and I've been asking you to please, please and please, show me the verse that says that the Melchizedek priesthood has been REPLACED! Why has it been so difficult for you to simply offer a verse for that?

Listen carefully. Two types of priesthood. Levitical and Melchizedical. One - Melchizedekal - is superior. Christ's is of that order. Stop faffing about around priesthood. It was Melchizedek symbolically, it is Christ in fulfillment. You know what I mean, but with nothing to offer, as ever you go for the bluster you love so much. And please enough of your spiteful feminine piety. "I'll let that pass". If you don't nko? Like I care. Please stick to the topic and address issues.

The tithe in the Abraham/Melchizedek incident. Shows that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical type. One of several ways the difference between the two is made. The other main one being, one is unchanging  - due to an endless life -  The type The Lord now has, not because worshippers have to respond as Abraham did. Which in any event was a one off tithe of the spoils/booty. It in now way translates into an ongoing tithe for NTC. And cannot be read as such by an unbiased mind.

I have said before, that a voluntary tithe does not accrue benefits "Over & Above" regular giving, and hence, cannot be distinguished from it. Unless you can show how it is and how it does, it is a mute point. What benefits does tithing engender that giving does not? You love asking questions, but are always quick to ignore those posed.

Another short and concise post which no doubt will be met by lots of obfusction, diversionary tactics, red-herring chasing and your usual advanced alchemy!.

Stick to the main thrust. Stop asking questions as a way to impeed the discussion. Stop wilfully misreading and doggedly pursuing minor errors or omissions and repeatedly asking the same question. Fighting battles on non-issues will never win wars.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Tithing doesn't have to be 10%.

Ah, so you know better than abraham now? After all, you are modelling it on his one-off action?

pilgrim.1:
Giving in Church is regarded in this way:

Heb. 13:16 -- "But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."

So, giving to the poor is not a sacrifice, but giving to the church needy is? Intricate indeed !

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
As for the spoils of war:

1 Chronicles 26:27 -- "Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD."

Approx 1%. And again not essential to the notion of a personal tithe. More diversionary tactics. Indeed, "spoils of war" litigates against your position.

End it, now.

God bless
TV

The "unchanging nature" of WHAT exactly?

The Priesthood. The Melchizedekal type does has an endless life, no death, and therefore does not change. The essence is the priesthood, what ther tithe denotes is the superiority of the one that it is paid to, over the one that paid it. Period. No alchemy.

I didn't argue otherwise. My point was that the Melchizedek priesthood was not a "pre-figure" of Christ's priesthood; nor was Scripture contrasting the Aaronic priesthood to Christ's. Please go learn the meaning of those statements so we could quickly move this thread on

Read on to chapter 8,9, & 10. You describe my reading as narrow. Perhaps, but at least it's comprehensive, unlike your "one verse + alchemy" doctrinal appraoch.

I am asking just one thing: WHERE is the verse that helps you DENOUNCE tithing the way YOU have been doing? I'm least interested in your evasions; so please just provide the verse that has been helping YOU denounce tithes.

Keep harping. Are you really interested in discussion? I have discussed tithing as not mandated by any biblical law and at best a voluntary action. In which case no problem, go ahead. I also said as a voluntary action, there is nothing to suggest that it accrues benefits or marks the tither out as more spiritual/mature or holder of deep revelation. My submission.

I haven't done that either. If anything at all, you have again and again been the one morphing "tithing" into "giving" and trying to d so by qualifying the former with "voluntary".

You really are spoiling for a fight aren't you. Have I not made myself clear already?

I'm asking a simple question:

WHERE is God's WORD is it taught that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"?

The order remains, Christ is the incumbent. Superior to the Levitical/Aaronic. That is all. You are forcefully trying to make people tithe, just because Abraham did so once. Symbolic of said superiority. Keep tossing your girly asides. Think dcks back and water.

You're just being silly. The Levites under the Law also paid tithes to high priest! Does that therefore demonstrate that the Aaronic priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood?

Abeg, cover your unclothedness. The house of Aaron where Levites. The HP was restricted to the house of Aaron.

Let me ask you something, TV01. If you suppose that Paul and the Macedonians missed tithing because you always must needs be so narrow, what place does Proverbs 3:9 & 10 hold in the Christian walk? As for other verses in the NT where the subject of tithing is underscored, I'll come to that. I only request you to demonstrate if you're here for a discussion or you'd rather be at the receiving end of my swathes.

Desperation sets in. Appending Proverbs 3:9&10 does what exactly? I know, it diverts us from the topic in hand. Carry on.

I don't think this discussion has come to the level of a personal trade-off, has it? TV01, can we discuss, or you actually are begging for the same invectives you've been constantly giving off?

I think it would be good to declare your interest in tithing, by clearly stating your denominational affiliation and position in that denomination. Nothing more personal than that.

I did not argue that tithe DENOTE Life. I offered what Hebrews 7:8 points to: the tithes there are not obsolete, because the One who receives them is clearly proclaimed in these words: "he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." If you want to argue that he is DEAD rather than living, I'd be glad to see the verse where you got that idea from. Thank you.

So Hebrews 7:8, points to the fact that tithes are not obsolete. Obsolete as a what? There was never anything to suggest they were mandated or expected or needful or relevent. If they were, there would have been no need to codify it by law, it would have been standard practice.

You willfully refuse to see that it was not standard practise before the law, neither is there  anyhing to suggest it was. If it was, there would have been no need for what would have been a new law (or it would at least been made in reference to the previus practice - which in any event was not agricultural products), but a renewal of a forgotten or abandoned practice.

Melchizedek recieved the tithe from Abraham. Because the order remains, does that mean that the tithe remains? A one off tithe of the spoils of war? With 90% to a gentile King. So as our fellow poster enquired, please expound on it in practise. Translate Abrahams actions and the resultant act for NTC. Maybe it wpuld help if we can see it practically.

Simply and categorically the tithe was to denote difference between the types. EOS. Keep trying to mutate it into "intricate, sacrfificial NT worship practise", of which only a few have the revelation.

Great. Then TITHES would never have been mentioned in that chapter at all; or, it would rather have been denounced the way you have done several times!

It was mentioned for a reason, as noted above and umpteen times previously.

Just stop being silly, will you? HOW MANT times have you tried to cheat people with the idea that TITHES are by LAW?!?

Never!
But you have to keep warping what I say to find something to argue about and justify your untenable position. That is, falsify my premise to justify your (flawed) position.

I'm here.

God bless
TV

otuwe:
if i take 10% of my income evrymonth and give it to the less priviledged, am i paying my tithe or is it only when i take it to church that it becomes tithe

Can't you read ! You go to war, kick butt, then give 10% to the High Priest and the rest to an unbelieving ruler !

Quote from: TV01 on Today at 12:53:16 PM
I started as a tither as well. But my persuasions to the contrary came after months of study, prayer and discussion. There is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion. However you must come to that conclusion yourself. Taking a stance based on anothers persuasion is the reason many Christians are manipulated by man-made doctrine.[color=#990000][/color]

I started out as someone who did NOT tithe, until I came to understand (after prayer, much study and discussions) that tithing is not a man-made doctrine. It is morally wrong to make sweeping statements as there is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion, especially when you haven't offered anything on the points already made thereto.

I stated my experience and my opinion, then advised that he not take my word as gospel, but seek truth for himself, whats sweeping or morally wrong with that?

Plus you haven't made the point of it being a Christian notion. You have just mishandled scripture in an attempt to do so.

Here's another mistake you often make. The whole notion does not rest on Hebrews 7:8. The reason why I have thus far limited my discussions to that verse is because you have offered absolutely nothing to demonstrate where TITHING is denounced in Scripture the way you have been doing all along!

Tiothing was only mandatory under the law. If the law is done away with and it was no where else instituted, why would it have to be denounced. Ask yourself where it was ever instituted as a practise above or beyond the law, and in a way that makes it part of NT worship.

If the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic (as surely it is), where in Scripture do we read that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"?

More of your sleight. Stop trying to make an issue of Priesthood. 2 types one superior, Christs like the superior one. I'm starting to believe you really are a girls blouse.

And did the spoils not belong to Abraham?

Utterly muddled. So spoils are Abrahams, gives 10% to God and 90% to Sodom?

Did Hebrews 7:9 & 10 say that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek under the LAW?

You can't even win an arguement you make on your own terms and have with yourself? Who is arguing for law based tithing? Again, the paying of tithe by Abraham to Melchizedek was to demonstrate the superiority of his Priesthood over the Levitical. As easily seen in context.

What is the import of these words in that verse: "but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." Why do you suppose that the apostle would use tithes of all things to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood to the Aaronic and Levitical?

I outlined this for you earlier. Because the lesser is blessed by the better. Abraham paying a tithe signified his acceptance of the superiority as referenced later in Hebrews.

Abraham's tithing was not by any LAW or COMMAND! In the same way, the tithes Levi paid through Abraham to Melchizedek was not by LAW! I'm still interested in the verse you offered for your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED".

No one said it was by law. Please don't go puce barking up the wrong tree. There are only two types of priesthood, Christs ios lioke the second superior one. Stop terying to make this issue rest on an inconsequential corallary and blatant misinterpretation of scripture. Tithes don't demonstrate an endless life.

And I also note you selective (and still muddled) responses to posts.

The Bible clearly states that our giving is a SACRIFICE (Heb. 13:15 & 16)! It is your tendency to make denials that I'm still calling your attention thus far. If you can afford to be humble enough to acknowledge God's Word, your problems will then be minimized.

Forget Greek, try English. There's a difference between "sacrifice" and "sacrificial". It's always a sacrifice, but not always sacrificial a la ther macedonians. But as ever you chase down the non-essentials and write booming epistles about the inconsequential. You keep demonstrating that it's personal.

Repeating the same tired old questions that ave been answered. I've offered that you drop the qualifying adjectives by which you've been cheating readers in your arguments. Tithing is NOT a question of "MANDATED" or "COMMAND" or "COERCION" or "FORCE"!! Tithing did not begin and end with the LAW! Why strenously make it a matter of COMPULSION where God's word does not do so for the Christian?

Trying to offer the passive adjectives of "voluntary" to qualify tithing is simply removing the basis for your arguments already. Whether "voluntary tithe", or "free-choice tithe" or any other qalifiers, the one thing you've been offering is a denunciation of [u]TITHE[u]! And that is the one thing I've been requesting of you: please show me the verse in the NT that denounces tithe the way you have been doing!

Tithing is not mandatory. Thus it can only be voluntary. How does it differ from giving? What benefits accrue? In the absence of any answers to these, it can be seen only as the same and any seperate classification or need as mute. I keep it simple, why can't you. Windy and wrong!

Quote from: TV01 on Today at 12:53:16 PM
If you agree with the arguements for tithing based on Abraham/Melchizedek, that would have to be to the HP. That is The Lord Himself.

And what is soooo wrong with that?

Please tell us how now.

God bless

@ Pilgrim,

I won't let you weary me ! Recourse to long posts and slieghts of hand won't prove your point.

Christ being a Priest after the order of MZD, is to denote the unchanging nature and it's endless life. Period.

The MZD HP is contrasted as superior to the Levitical/Aaronical.

Keep insisting that the NT does not denounce tithing, why should it. It was instituted under the law - since done away with - and the one off payment by Abraham of the spoils of war (90% to the King of Sodom), was symbolic to show the superiority of MZD over Levi as priesthood types, not a pattern action for NTC to follow, and there is nothing to suggest that.

Trying to morph the discussion into something else by being semantic over non-essentials won't play.

Two types of Priesthoods copntrasted. Levitical and Melchizedekal. Melchizedekal shown to be superior to Levitical. Christ is after the order of Melchizedek. Period.

The Tithe was one of the points used to show the Melchizedekal as superior. Not a primer for NTC.

The writer of Hebrews was merely contrasting the Priesthoods and to a lesser degree the law and the superiority of Christinaity over Judaism.

It was not denounced anywhere in the NT; and I've shown how and why Christians would do well to tithe - not as a "MANDATE" or a "COERCED" exercise; but rather as an intricate part of our sacrificial worship in the new covenant.

Again, your ingenuity is staggering. a tithe of 10% = Sacrificial worship. How warped is that? Intricacy in worship? Listen to yourself.

Presumably the tithe being so intricate & crucial, and 10% being sacrificial was missed by both Paul and the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8/9?

I wish you had the integrity to come out and tell us what denominational teaching that is, and what part you play in your tradition? That is bluster at best.

Whether it's the Priesthood or the occupant, there is nothing to suggest tithing is incumbent or in any way considered as sacrificial worship for NTC. And Hebrews 7 does not suggest so.

More than that, the one reason why TITHES are there discussed is to show that the Melchizedek priesthood is a living one.

More evidence of your totally ignoring 1 Peter 1:20 that you proclaim so loudly.

Tithes are used to show the Melchizedek Priesthood is a living one? You cannot be serious? How does tithe denote life? Or everlasting in nature?

There is no instance in the entire Bible to suggest that it is an obselete priesthood, as we read in the case of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

Again, trying to be semantic about corallary issues in order to appear to be right won't cut it.
We all know Christs priesthood is after the order of Melchizedeks, mentioned - just the once, and symbolic of Christs HP - but that doesn't suggest tithe as a NT Worship offering.

(b) That the tithes by NT believers are not rejected but rather received by One who still lives. This is what exactly is expressed in that verse, and the Amplified Version has so captured it well for our easy reading:

This is so wrong as to be meaningless. How does the Lord recieve tithes?

Perhaps, we all need to come to terms with the fact that even that verse does not present tithing as a matter of compulsion. I trust it is no longer difficult for us to see that our High Priest who is called after the order of Melchizedek does not "demand" tithes, but rather invites us to understand that it is an intricate aspect of our worship to God. Are we to tithe? Yes, as Christians we should - and beyond Heb. 7:8, there are other verses that demonstrate the power and truth in that aspect of our worship.

Will you please quit about compulsion? Everyone is agreed it can't be by law. You keep harping on about non-issues to make it appear that you have a case. You don't

And no it doesn't show it at all. It was symbolic to denote superiority. End of story.

Please show it (no doubt with your usual wuru wuru) beyond Hebrews 7:8. And the other verses that demonstrate the "power & truth" of tithing as an act of worship. No doubt you'll continue your boast of "revelation", but never actually share anything in a straightforward and impossible to deny manner.

I also note your new tactic of selective cutting and pasting to make it sound like I said something I did'nt and then write a treatise rejecting it. Whatever. I won't turn tail no matter how dirty you make it. You simply have no case and your assertion for a NT tithe as an act of sacrificial worship (sounds wierder the more I read it, utter bunkum), is baseless and without merit.

God bless
TV

buluti:
@ pilgrim.1 & TV01, it would be nice for you guys to bring down the tone of your responses. I believe the intention is to share with & edify each other. I must confess this thread has been a blessing so am pained when i read some unnecessary and derogatory comments from each of you.

Apologies for any offence. And I'm happy you are otherwise being blessed.

buluti:
Now on the issue of tithing, i recognise TV01 point and recently tilted towards that persuasion. I used to tithe thought i understood why but to me it was like a law i.e. "under the law". Then i started giving (i.e. not observing tithing) and really at this point i gave more than i used to when i "tithed", but i still studied and wanted to understand more. So when i found this thread i come in frequently to read the contributions. TV01 persuasion until recently has been very sound and he showed good understanding of the issues.

I started as a tither as well. But my persuasions to the contrary came after months of study, prayer and discussion. There is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion. However you must come to that conclusion yourself. Taking a stance based on anothers persuasion is the reason many Christians are manipulated by man-made doctrine.

I would also say that the discussion on tithe goes way beyond the doctrinal, and on to the practical. But please stay tuned and hopefuly we'll discuss this end-to-end

buluti:
However, pilgrim.1 has brought in a totally new perspective to the debate and i had to go study Hebrews 7, after reading her responses. My Life application study bible translates Hebrews 7: 8 "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" and verse 9 "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham". In my opinion the key to unlocking this debate lies in Hebrew 7:8 and would want responses from the Bible scholars in the house on this verse, from as many translations as possible.

A new perspective? That's one way of putting it. In any event, it's not one that teaches NT Christians to tithe.

I'd also disagree that the whole notion rests on Hebrews 7:8, although I'd say that understanding it in context won't contradict all the other scripture which makes tithing a mute point or redundant practice.

Let me ask, Who are those referred to in that verse? It's clearly The Levitical HP and the Melchizedek HP. As I've said the juxtaposition of those two types is to show the superiority of the Melchizedekal over the Aaronical/Levitical.

Verse 2 & 4: Clearly show it was the spoils that were tithed. Not income, or [previously owned chattel belonging to Abraham
Verse 5: shows that the Levitical priesthood collected tithes under the law.
Verse 6: Shows that MZD was paid a tithe by Abraham
Verse 7: Shows that as MZD blessed Abraham, his HP is therefore superior to the Levitical one.
Verse 8: Shows the superiority in terms of an endless life (MZD), and that "here" (at that time under that dispensation - the law), mortal men recieve the tithe, but in the earlier case one without geneology and an endless life (MZD), recieved them. The emphasis is on the superiority of the Melchizedekal type, as the Levites tithed to Melchizedek (via Abraham).
Verse 9 & 10: Again emphasising the superiority of the Melchizedekal type over the Levitical.
Verse 11 & 12: Shows that the Lords HP is after the order of MZD. It also notes a changing of the law (under which tithe was commanded).

So how one can read this as an instructive for NTC to pay a tithe is beyond rational comprehension. It is doing no such thing. Neither is it a new perspective on the tithe, but merely a mischevious way of justifying it.

buluti:
In addition i agree with pilgrim.1 that those who give are blessed above those who don't and more specifically the differentiation between those who give simply as an attitude and those that give as an act of worship in other words sacrificial.

No one has claimed that those who give are not blessed for doing so. I don't believe that giving has to be sacrificial to counts as a worship response. Plus lets not forget that giving is a grace.

buluti:
Am not much of a theologian but Hebrews 7:8 could suggest that there is a place of Tithing for a NT believer or the church. I still would want to read more responses on that verse and chapter. I would not subscribe to this "law", "mandatory" or "voluntary" theories. Tithing as showed by Abraham was not "under the law" and a christain today is not "under the law", so a Christain could Tenth (Tithe) but not in response to or under the law.

Could you please tell us how or why you think Hebrews 7:8 suggests that? Pilgrim.1 is trying to make that claim, but it isn't so.

In exploring the tithing issue, we looked at whether it was commanded or not. If it's not commanded, then it can only be voluntary, if it's voluntary, what makes it different from giving (to whatever degree)? If it is distinct from giving, how so? If there are benefits, what are they?

If you tithe in "response", may I ask in in response to what? Is that which engenders a tithing response, different from that which leads to give (again to whatever degree). Can I overstress that giving is a/by grace?

The tithing as "worship response" is one of the more bemusing arguements I've heard. Perhaps I've just misunderstood?

buluti:
My question however lies on the applicability to us today. Must i pay my tenth (tithe) on a monthly income, or must it be from increases i.e. bonuses etc. How can i ascertain if Abraham continuously paid this Tenth or if it was a once and for all thing. In addition my Tenth is it from first fruits (i.e yearly) or is it again from my monthly income.

1. It's not applicable to NTC.
2. No and no.
3. You cannot, as he didn't.
4. It was a symbolic occurence, later expounded on as contrasting priesthoods.
5. Ah firstfruits, another misinterpreted OT practise.

buluti:
Furthermore, is there a guide on where i should pay my tenth to, can i choose to give my tenth to charities, or those in need amongst us in the body of Christ, or must i pay it to the ministry i belong to and actively support. The easy answer is to pay the Tithe to where i worship and not worry about how it is used, though i believe its used properly, i also know am accountable for the resources God has blessed me with and see a lot of opportunities to bless people that the "Big" ministry cannot see, i should be able to use my resources to bless the brethren and not only give to my ministry.

If you agree with the arguements for tithing based on Abraham/Melchizedek, that would have to be to the HP. That is The Lord Himself.

Give in response to a need (or to bless if you so choose)

Nobody is baptised into a "ministry". Christians belong to the "Body". Prioritise your family, the Body and then those outside. And I agree, you are accountable for what God has placed in your trust. The end of Matthew 25 may also help. God never blessd anyone for over-arching ministry projects. Rather just succour the needy.

buluti:
I really would want responses along this line, am sorry if am deviating or expanding the thread, but to me the question is bigger than just "Tithe or Not to Tithe". The 2 schools have presented good arguments, so to let move on. If we "Tithe" how should it be pratised and if people are to give freely how should it also be pratised, is there a place for sacrificial giving in the proponents of that school. Lets expand this debate a bit.

I hope the abovde has helped. But please study and pay yourself. And no, these are all pertinent questions.

There is no NT outline for tithing, but plenty for giving. But I for one would like to hear how proponents feelo a tithe should be utilised. Hopefully they won't hide behind "it's a woship response".

God bless
TV