₦airaland Forum

Zikkyy:
There is no need for all this. Its been quite obvious that anti-tithers on this thread are not against those that tithe out of freewill. The issue has been that of churches using tithing scheme to con members into surrendering a tenth of their earnings to the church coffers by making it a compulsory act.

Personnaly i believe the act of free will giving should be encoraged here instead as opposed to tithing cos tithing is more susceptible to fraudelent manipulations by churches. To encourage tithing here is to continue to promote the con by some of these churches. However, we should not discourage those that give a tenth to their church if that is what they really want to do (i.e. have shined their eyes very well before deciding to tithe). Thats is the way i see it.

I agree with you on the highlighted. Yet, it does not appear that antitithers are comfortable with any form of tithing - whether they are done out of freewill or otherwise. To declare 'tithes' wholesale as "heretical" or "criminal" does not demonstrate that the one who declares such is making a sensible distinction. People have used just about anything to con people - we know this for a fact. I'm convinced that many people even among antitithers have continued to con people with gullible fantasies and plainly false tales as we have seen over and over again! That type of behaviour coming from "Christian ministers" is no better than those they accuse. Lying is lying, whether done by tithers or antithing professors and theologians.

chukwudi44:
If this is the way tithing is preached today's churches I wont have any problem with that but criminals whom you re very much aware of like Mattew Ashimolowo preach that christians must pay 10% of their incomes to the church in accordance with a aman  made commandment that they purported to emenate from God.

It's okay for you to sling mud. .  you never know what would happen if someone else did it to you. That's the beauty of a forum, innit? Anyhow, I don't see any condemnation upon any believer who chooses to tithe, and I've given reasons thereto.

Pilgrim1 ,obviously you are out to cause confusion in this forum,as the saying goes the leopard never changes it,s spots,it is now very obvious that you re not a true christian,you definitely know what you re doing,if you like pick another ID and call it viapilgim ,we will still know u .

Lol, 'viapilgim' is perhaps a good name to scare you the more; and no matter what anyone says, is it not obvious that you confirmed what I said in my last reply to you? Rather than discuss the topic, you guys are too busy misrepresenting discussants, as if that is the pivotal point upon which your convictions rest. But to go so far as to condemn someone as not a Christian (let alone a 'true' one) is sort of comical and a typical antitithing anthem. But no. .  it's not new to me. Tell me, do your antithing arguments make you a 'truer' Christian than anyone else (especially when you don't quite know what you're arguing)?

You will claim that tithing is not compulsory,then you go ahead to attack those who ondemn exponents of compulsory tithing,which side of the divide are u?

I am not in the business of condemning anyone niggardly the way you do - at least, you don't read me anywhere labelling anyone as a false Christian just because their views differ from mine. Tithing has nothing to do with someone's salvation. How about you show us where I condemned your 'exponents', other than the obvious shame of "Christian ministers" shovelling and recycling fictitious fantasies about calling 3 rabbis in the LA area? Ernest L. Martin's tales are false - that is one issue where I called the blanks, but not in any instance did I go to the length of labelling him a false Christian.

I am yet to see anyone in this forum who is against someone who freely decides to give 10% of his/her income to the church,that is not what we preach against,

What then do you preach against? Look dear sir, if you are not against something, let's see you encourage it instead of trying to "confirm" dubious tales from askelm.com! I'm not against anyone who does not feel led to tithe - God bless them as much as He blesses those He leads to do so.

I partly agree with you, edoyad. It just seems that the award is becoming cheapened by the hipe and all that. Isn't it ironic that the same question is being asked in his country: "What has Obama done to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?" I don't particularly know. But when the 'achievements' that might have earned him the prize are lined up, would it be far wrong to say that there are many, many people who might have stood a better chance to be thus honoured? Just me musing.

Well, I'm not an expert in public speaking. However, perhaps a good start is to focus on the value of your product. If you're excited about what you want to present, then facing a crowd or just one person won't be that much of a problem. Yes, initially it may look tough. However, once you get started, your nerves begin to relax (unless you audience deliberately just want to make things very tough for you).

Hmmm. . .

Topic: "Free Certification"

Advertizer then says:

olabello:
it isn't FREE OF CHARGE. REMEMBER, INFORMATION IS POWER!

There's always a catch to it, no?

Atayase:
Here is my advise. So, you are not relying on second hand information, go to the PMI website at www.pmi.org for information regarding eligibility for PMP Exam.

Good one. And also to add: it al depends on what particular certification you're pursuing. You could either go through the PMI, or opt for a vendor-neutral PM like that offered by CompTIA.

TV01:
I posted on the "Once saved always saved" thread initiated by Gamine. Coincidentally - or not? - she was right behind me. After one post I pretty much sussed. Motive? inspiration?? I have my thoughts.

It'll never last and he is a she.  !

TV01, no thanks, I'm not a she. If you are one, please stand up and be counted.
And as to 'motive', 'inspiration', what did you mean? By joining a thread (right behind you or not), was that how you provide grounds for yourself to prejudge people?
Would it be out of place for you to discuss? Please, next time you feel uneasy reading anyone's post right behind you, post a flag to let them know. Much obliged.

3 simple rules to observe when dating (some) women:

1. they nag

2. they nag

3. they nag.

Guys wait and see (some) ladies react to highlight the fact.
If they do, don't be a loser - just accommodate them.

Love = what a person does for himself.
Lust = what others see you doing when your senses are on vacation.

How d'ya rate that for a start?

selingel:
Meanwhile, some have used the email address, and have made positive contributions which have changed my orientation to even the topic, and many more are still coming in. Some ladies have even mailed me, and I have been introducing myself more to them. There are things that cant be discussed here, but can privately be discussed.

Good. I'm happy to read of progress under 24 hours.
May your net spread wide, and the fish you catch serve your happiest moments.
May the waves not be too tubulent for you nor turn over your boat.
Rock on bro.

debosky:
While not wanting to be pedantic or claim to know what Jesus was thinking, I must highlight this: Note that in each case we can find copious teachings (either separate or combined) on Justice, Faith and Mercy, but NONE others on tithing. Does that not lend further support that the earlier mention was indeed focused on castigating the Pharisees for their legalistic approach and NOT saying Christians should tithe?

The focus was not on castigating the Pharisees, else He would not be asking them to do anything. Hence, I don't see how that squares with the emphatic pointers He left to do both.

Even if traced back to the Law, it is NOT a 'license' as it were to continue carrying out practices as contained in the Law. It merely serves to indicate that the overall purpose of the law is fulfilled in Jesus.

Which brings the point of "principles" to the fore, rather than a 'license', don't you think?

I won't debate this as it is not 'essential' to the current discourse as you have discovered.

Okay - in which case, you could see that not everything pertaining to the essentials of our faith are to be found only in His quotes in the Gospels.

I like that word ''inoperative''.  Can this not be the case for tithes as well, since the Levitical Priesthood whom were the collectors of the tithe became ''inoperative'' as well as the means of interacting with God? 

Lol, this fails to see the fact that tithes were not made 'inoperative' on the basis of a Law that came long afterwards. If tithes are settled only on the Law, then there could be a legitimacy to argue its inoperation and discontinuation. But a Law that came long after tithes could not render something inoperative that it did not originate.

I disagree - they were MANDATORY requirements, which needed to be carried out, since it 'belongs to the Lord'.

If you were referring to the highlighted parts you had quoted from mine, I could point you to references that show that they were as articulated. However, that they were 'mandatory' to Israel by a commandment is obvious from a reading of Hebrews 7:5; yet they were not a "requirement" in as much as tithes were not established upon the basis of meeting any intrinsic aspect of their salvation. One is not 'saved' or 'lost' upon the basis of the tithes, for tithes are not taught in Scripture as a basis of anyone's salvation. That is the sense I meant as "not required". If you still disagree, I have no qualms; but you may please find me where tithes were made a "requirement" for any part of their salvation.

To argue whether it was 'indispensable' or not is to start engaging in unnecessary determinations of significance.

Not necessarily. If Scripture shows that it was indeed having any part to play in their salvation, please show and share.

The simple fact is that they were required to do so - Moses gave CLEAR instructions on what must be done.

For reference Deuteronomy 26:12

12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.

Note the use of WHEN and SHALL which are not 'optional' as it were. If we want to get into the 'meaning'  of the word shall:

The word shall is used to qualify an action which is mandatory but can be construed as required considering the situation

In other words, if it is 'mandatory' and 'required', it is a 'requirement'. 

I've shared my distinction in context of what I meant by "requirement" - nothing changes from the same position I held in my previous replies. So I don't think you've said anything new as significantly at odds with what I shared earlier in this regard. I have already stated in my last reply #400 that:

[list]"Lol, yes, under the OT dispensation, the Levites had a commandment to take tithes - and even the Levites themselves also "paid" tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek."[/list]

Consequently, I went on to state in that same post #400:

[list]But I haven't come across any verse as yet that made it a "requirement" in as much as it did not point to the fulfillment of any indispensable aspect of their salvation or atonement under the Law.[/list]

That was what I stated earlier in context of my use of "requirement"; and while not disputing your context, I am yet to see how tithes were a "requirement" in terms of the intrinsic nature of the Law as pertaining to the salvation of anyone - OT or NT. Other matters that were "required" of the Law upon Israel pointed to their salvation; but not the tithes. That was the sense in which I saw the "requirement" that people often argue about.

Finally, the way I would answer your attempt to distinguish the 'indispensable' from the others is thus:

Deuteronomy 28:1

If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

Clearly the COMMAND to TITHE as expressed in chapter 26 of the same book is contained in this promise. As such, it cannot be separated or rendered any less 'dispensable' compared to the other commands given on that day.

Lol, at pain of risking a repetition, let me call your attention to the fact that I already have outlined that I was aware of the Levites having a commandment to receive tithes from their brethren - which again I had to highlight in this reply (Hebrews 7:5). That verse shows that the Levites had a "commandment" as such; but as far as what the intrinsic nature of the Law, it was NOT a "requirement". I hope you get the distinction now?

By way of expounding, for it to be a "requirement" would not be simply a "commandment" - it would rather be something that was indispensable for their salvation for it to be a "requirement". No such verses in either the OT or NT shows tithes to be a 'requirement' in this case; even though we have COMMANDMENTS in both the OT and NT concerning our giving to God. Our giving (whatever they are - tithes, freewill offerings, donations, alms, etc) are not "requirements", as they have nothing intrinsic to rest our salvation upon. They are not the basis of our salvation. However, even in the NT, we have several instances where COMMANDMENTS were given concerning our giving/offerings (whatever they are).

Now, are the "commandments" in this regard be said to be "requirements" as well? Are we "required" to give offerings as Christians? If not, where is the argument to see "requirements" only in the Law and yet fail to see it in the new covenant if we are arguing that "commandment" = "requirement"?

Phew, bro . . I enjoy your reasoning (and in many things I essentially agree with you). Even when you disagree, your points have been quite heart-warming. However, take a moment and consider the contexts of what I'm trying to convey. . it may sort out a few other issues you may not have considered. What sayest thou?

@chukwudi,

Your questions are okay, and it is such that I like to answer. However, they reveal two things to my mind:

   (a) the fact that people who ask questions like that rarely have answers to address questions themselves;

   (b) the fact that no matter the answers that may be given, a default mindset already exists to reject every other position that does not favour the anti-tither.

I've observed both scenarios in this topic, and I can attest to them. As to (a) above, you don't seem to be able to proffer any answers after our last engagement. Remember my reply in post #396 to your exclamations in post #395? That is just one example, and perhaps you will prove the veracity of (b) above when you react to this reply. So here goes:

chukwudi44:
In accordance wih the melchizedek tithe,please where was is commanded that the melchizedek tithe should be repeated by anybody?

That's a red-herring. In the first place, where was it written that Melchizedek took tithes by any "commandment"? That is the first and necessary question that must come before asking for any other commandment that goes after. Abraham received no "commandments" to tithe to Melchizedek; and what the former gave to the latter was clearly referred to as "tithes" despite the absence of any "commandments".

Assuming the melchizek tithe is still valid,how can we that are not involved in war tithe ,since there are no war booties to tithe ?

What Abraham did was not supposed to be a clone to all believers. He acted by faith in response to the blessing of Melchizedek - the very same thing that you acknowledged in part in your third question below.

Where in the bibe did God command Abraham to tithe in the order of melchizedek  as it appears Abraham tithed out of his own freewill ?

This is the mystery of the Christian faith. It is clear that Abraham acted out of his own freewill without the enactment of any legalistic commanements to do so as regards the tithe he gave to Melchizedek. What condemns any believer if they also do the same in principle - acting our of their freewills as led by the Holy Spirit?

Assuming the tithe is still valid ,where can I find this man to pay tithe to him,since there is no where else anyone else was instructed to receive tithes on his behalf  ?

You do not need to meet Melchizedek face to face. What you really don't realize is that every Christian is already connected with the very same priesthood of Melchizedek that is the basis for our Lord's priesthood. Levi did not meet Melchizedek face to face, and yet Scripture says that he also gave tithes to the latter.

Having said all that, let me leave a postscript.

I've only tried to distinguish issues on this subject on the basis of common science language. That does not make me any authority on any matter. However, when we place our concerns logically and carefully on the table, we should be able to follow common conventions in discussions of this nature.

It was not my intention to find flaws in some of the things you had stated. Not at all. Infact, as a Christian believeing in creation, I don't find Darwinism satisfying in many of its claims (and no, Darwin is not the originator of 'evolution theory'). However, if 'Creation Design' (CD) is presented as the basis of falsifying a 'theory' in science, then CD itself should have scientific hypothesis and models that are testable by scientific laws as well.

What are my convictions thereto?

Well, I strongly believe in creation as a fact; but in discussions of this nature, I may not be able at this time to present 'CD' (creation design) as an alternative scientific theory as the basis for the falsifiability of any scientific theory (not just the evolution theory). Yes, I said 'any' scientific theory, because there are also several other theories about 'origins' - such as the Big Bang theory, the panspermia hypothesis, etc. If 'Creation Design' is a scientific theory or hypothesis with its own difficulties and alternative explanatory powers (AEPs), then it would have to first undergo its own falsifiability in order to show its strengths and weaknesses. Its hypothesis would be tested scientifically under various conditions, and it should be able to add knwoledge to other scientific disciplines as well. However, since these are seriously lacking in what is commonly called 'Creation Design', it cannot even be passed as a scientific theory to begin with.

Yet, as a teleological pursuit, Creation Design is a powerful tool for reasoning about the world - if and only if ("iff" the teleologist knows how to present his arguments for considerations. It is not enough to assume that a painting points to a painter; because I have seen several phenomena that appear as art works without the likehood of involving the mechanical efforts of any painter or artist. Philosophically, a teleological argument (when well-articulated) is indeed a powerful tool that helps us to think about the world and ourselves. Not only does it ask questions and seeks deeply reasoned answers, it is also able to show the weaknesses (and strengths) of other disciplines and human endeavours.

However, let me share with you what I would recommend. Rather than try to advance a dogmatist outlook on world phenomena (such as the unscientific constructs of "thus and thus must be thus", a better discipline is what is now known as "Systemics". Let me cite a summary of what systemics is from Wikipedia:

[list]Systemics is an emerging branch of philosophy that studies systems based on holistic view points. It tries to develop logical, mathematical, engineering and philosophical paradigms and frameworks in which physical, technological, biological, social, cognitive and metaphysical systems can be studied and developed. Systemics can be considered an alternative name for all research related to General Systems Theory and systems science.[/list]

Since our known world is so vast and mysterious, we understand that no single discipline has all (or even nearly all) the answers. This is why even though the evolution theory (as a 'theory') may try to explain certain observable phenomena, it does not answer even half of the mysteries of our universe. The same thing with other theories - no single one could begin to answer nearly all possible questions of our quest to understand the world. This is where questions are also necessary to evalute the postulations of 'Creation Design' - how powerful a model does it demonstrate in answering deeply thought-out questions of our universe? A blanket statement about 'creation' is hardly a satisfying answer. Therefore, what creationists, evolutionists and other scientists should be looking at here is what is referred to as "Systems Science" - it is a holistic approach that considers broad-based enquiries, including metaphysical ones.

I should pause here for your comments thus far; and if you don't see me for some time, I shall consider them when I can be less busy.

Thank you so much for engaging.

Krayola:
become a playwright. or some kinda job in the arts.

Deep Sight has a rare gift of communication.

Here then are my observations for your post #339.

OLAADEGBU:
This is an example of how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory.

It seems to me that what is called 'Creation Design' is not even a theory; and one cannot use a teleological argument as the basis for "falsifying" a scientific theory - it just does not work that way. One could appraise the difficulties that the evolution theory still faces; but which 'theory' does not have difficulties for that matter?

Even if we may take for granted that 'Creation Design' (CD) passes for a 'theory', it would have difficulties of its own by necessity - it cannot be a 'done deal' that is so watertight in its postulations and presuppositions. If the CD is not a theory, and does not have its own difficulties, it cannot be taken seriously either as an alternative theory, or a hypothesis, or even a model that has any AEP (alternative explanatory powers). Please remember: I'm trying to reason out issues scientifically.

In science you can easily refute a false idea that does not stand up to the laws of nature or scientific laws.

That is absolutely true. But. . . what do you use to "refute a false idea" in science? Since the answer is already given by you as 'scientific laws', the what do we call CD ('creation design'? One cannot assume CD to be a 'scientific law' if it has no scientifically testable hypothesis, models or falsifiability of its own. As such, your opening statement of "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory" is a serious misconstruct. Other scientific indices could be adduced to "falsify" the evolution theory; but the CD which is yet undefined by a scientific paradigm does not fall within this purview - it simply does not have a model or testable hypothesis at the moment (that does not mean that it will not have such in future).

Let us see a couple of ideas that scientific laws can tell us whether they are false or true.

Okay.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

Excellent.
Now please apply the same to Creation Design and see if it applies.

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O (This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

Good. . . I'm following your reasoning.

In Biology:

The statement "Man has evolved from a long process of evolution"

How do we know whether this statement is true or false?

We don't know at this point. But I'm more interested in the proof of your opening statement: "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory" - that is what I'm particular about.

We can know by testing it with the law of nature otherwise called scientific law.

The law of nature is not to be confused for 'scientific law' - they don't mean the same thing. What is commonly called the 'law of nature' is a theory that posits the existence of a law; while a 'scientific law' shows a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science. Let's not mix them for the sake of this discussion.

There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter.  Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life.   All other attempts by evolutionists, including the statement in quote above, have proven to be false.

What is the "scientifically" referred to as the 'law of life'? What testable hypothesis did he formulated, and how did that (or those) hypothesis emerge as a "scientific theory"?

The father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution formulated this law.  Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur.  He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc.  He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”.  

Let's not make a serious mistake here. The language that something "must" be something lies in the domain of teleology, not science. As a scientist, Pasteur could have found it difficult to imagine that life originated from non-life; but to assert that something "must have" done something is philosophical reasoning, not a scientifically structured statement. The fact that it is difficult for someone to have imagined the possibility of 'A' does not mean therefore by necessity that he had formulated the conditions for 'B'. That is why scientifically speaking, I'm just wondering what you mean by "the law of life" - it would be interesting to see the scientific formulae that established his testable hypothesis, models and theories into a "law of life" as a scientific law.

This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable.

Okay, all that reaction is not necessary. I'm still looking to see "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory". That's what is exciting to watch.

Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact.

Spontaneous generation is not the totality of the evolution theory. Like I said, theories by necessity would have their difficulties - nearly all theories formulated to date have had (and many still do have) difficulties. Even those theories that we consider as fact today (such as gravity) have their own difficulties, but the difficulties in themselves do not throw the theories completely overboard. Spontaneous generation is just one of the several hypothesis for the evolution theory: it is not the only basis of the TOE.

When this question was asked of Prof. Richard Dawkins, this is what he had to say:  "evolution has been observed it's just that it hasnt't been observed while it's happening."  Classic  

Dawkins is a showman - many people (including his colleagues) know that for a fact. Example? The scientist and evolution bilogist Michael Russ once quipped that Dawkins would fail an introductory Philosophy class - and I agree.

However, the evolution theory as a "theory" does not stand or fall on Dawkins' quotes and misquotes. Which was why I had excitedly anticipated a good discourse on what you set out to accomplish from the onset: "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory". Need I say that you have no demonstrated that very thing at all?

Zikkyy:
Hi Viaro, please go back to my post and note the section highlighted. That's what i am interested in. We have not gotten to the point where i either agree or disagree. It appears the Tonye-t has gotten hold of some ancient scroll that provides detailed info on the origin of tithe. I am simply interested. It would be nice of him to share, so some of us can also benefit from this newfound knowledge. Thanks

That's great, Zikkyy. However, even when one goes back to consider his statement (as highlighted again in your reply), it does not appear that he stated what details the origin of tithe(s), to be fair. If he said that the "basic" origin of tithe is such and such, he first made clear that it did not originate from the Mosaic Law. At first reading, it appears to me that by "basic origin", he might've been pointing to what many of us (including anti-tithers) already know. That was why I thought you might have a second opinion.

I had made these statements earlier:

viaro:
It is quite untennable to hold that something or someone had passed any tests if there are no scientific theories or models to bring to the table for falsifiability. We make speak in general terms about 'the Supreme Scientist' passing these, any or other tests; but what is clear is that such talk are hanging hypothetically until the theories and models are presented for others to ascertain where and how such tests were passed.

That said, let me next take a look at how you described 'creation design' as falsifying the evolution theory.

After having read through your comments about the above, I didn't find how your explanation had 'falsified' the evolution theory. Please let's understand a few things:

(1) we're trying to look at issues from a scientific perspective

(2) therefore, what we talk about should be evaluated scientifically (as much as we're able to)

(3) consequently, we should avoid mixing issues up between teleology and science

(4) as a result, we cannot use teleology to examine a theory (any theory) on scientific basis if our teleological assumptions are lacking the potential 'explanatory powers' that follow current scientific paradigms.

Let me take up the 4th point above before saying anything else. For anyone to be able to 'falsify' any theory (it does not matter whether it is TOE or any other), he or she should be able to offer an "alternative" hypothesis upon which the initial theory is to be falsified. That is the way scientific theories work. Therefore, if we are going to "falsify" any theory at all, we should be able to adduce alternative theories that have potential explanatory powers on the scientific grounds (not teleolgical grounds alone). These 'alternative explanatory powers' (AEP[/b]s) cannot just be floating around in arguments; rather, they should follow a structure that we can reference, such as passing through the stages of -

- testable [b]hypothesis

- functional models

- falsifiable theories

Anyone can argue ideas out in attempts to "falsify" this, that or any other theory. Generally, if we're going to falsify a "scientific theory", we should possess a premise that is scientifically defined. At the initial stage, what matters is not whether any groups of people are asserting that such and such is 'not a theory', or rather it is a 'mere theory' or even that 'it is not scientific'. No, issues of this nature are not settled that way. What follows logically is that when a theory is postulated, it would first have to be examined on its merit before any opinions can be formed. If it is "falsified", it does not survive for long and would have to be discarded while alternative theories are being pursued.

Okay, enough of my comments in this regard for now - let's go on to examine what you said.

Hi again OLAADEGBU,

I saw your replies to my enquiries; but even though I've been in and out of the Forum, I thought to give some time and thought to yours when less busy. If my replies here are not as detailed as I had planned, I shall try to expound them when I have more time.

OLAADEGBU:
You will have to pardon me for referring you to those links. I had to resort to this because questions asked had been answered one way or the other by me and so not to sound like a broken record it will be better if posters read it from the source first and if they still have any objections they should identify such and bring it for discussion.

That's fine with me. And the reason why I initially entered this thread is because I've had the opportunity to see those links prior to my initial posts here; and yet, I don't see how they had addressed the subjects in my concerns. My apologies if it seems mine missed the point.

Thank you for acknowledging that God Himself was an eyewitness to the work of His Creation. Since Creation is the work of God we will not be too far to address Him as the Supreme Scientist who has passed the observation test.

Lol, this is precisely what I wonder about. The first question that pops up in reading that is this: who subjected the 'Supreme Scientist' to those 'observation tests'? What theories did He postulate to be tested out scientifically?

Please don't get me wrong. It is not as if I question Him on anything; rather, my questions are often directed at those who make Him into a 'Supreme Scientist' and speak on His behalf to have passed some test or the other. See, it goes like this: when speaking scientifically, the moment someone hypothesizes that this or that or someone has passed some 'test', the two initial scientific assumptions that are necessary are these:

(a) what are the theories or models by which we could make such statements?

(b) how do you subject those theories or models to any scientific falsifiability?

It is quite untennable to hold that something or someone had passed any tests if there are no scientific theories or models to bring to the table for falsifiability. We make speak in general terms about 'the Supreme Scientist' passing these, any or other tests; but what is clear is that such talk are hanging hypothetically until the theories and models are presented for others to ascertain where and how such tests were passed. A necessary thing that logically follows would be that the result of such tests would be published as 'science', and others could then be able to point back to them and say precisely what was tested and how. If there's nothing to table for falsifiability, we cannot speak 'scientifically' but rather teleologically (ie., the philosophical study of design and purpose). It is the very paradigm that undergirds my concerns about advancing these notions of passing tests for the 'Supreme Scientist'. I hope you can understand my point in all that?

After the work of His creation He saw that it was very good. We can see that God is the originator of all the material world that we are studying, man is only discovering what God has created. And no, I did not observe Him when He started His work of creation but I can see the evidence of His design in His creation and also in His Word. When I see a building I need no rocket scientist to tell me that there was a builder and fact that for there to be a painting there has to be a painter. And that is the essence of creation design.

I get you, bro. Indeed, I agree with you on the issue of 'evidence' - the painting points to a painter, etc, etc, etc. Again, that is all in the domain of teleology, not science.

Science (in its current paradigm) is not just about pointing to 'evidence'; it is more about adducing an analytical and methodological structure by which we arrive at any interpretations we call 'evidence'. During the process of these methods and analysis, hypothesis are formulated, which are then tested out, re-analysed, and further tested out under other conditions - before they emerge as 'theories'. In brevity, science is more about theories rather than 'evidence'. Miss that, miss everything else.

The reason why theories are central to science is because they point to indices that have 'explanatory powers' at what is being observed as 'evidence'. If there are no theories, then we don't have anything to hold unto as 'explanatory powers' for the indices that we observed. As such, what we call 'evidence' would be 'evidence' only on the grounds of teleology rather than science.

Evolutionists use the claim that the order in the fossil record as evidence of the progressive organic evolution to today's plants and animals through various transitional intermediary stages over millions of years from common ancestors.

Yea, I know and understand that. Much as I'm not a fan of such ideologies, I'm yet willing to admit that if we are speaking scientifically, at least, evolution has hypothesis, theories, and models - the very things that are lacking in your teleology. Let's look at the next line and see what the difference is:

To the biblical creationists, the underlying thick strata sequences which are devoid of fossils and were therefore formed during creation week and the pre-Flood era which shows that most of the fossil record is a record of death and burial of animals and plants during the Flood as described in the biblical account, rather than being the order of a living succession that suffered the occasional mass extinction.

Hang on mate. . I didn't quite get you. Perhaps that up there needs an editing, because it all sounds somehow contradictory. It seems to me that what you're saying is:

(a) the underlying thick strata sequences are devoid of fossils

(b) but again, there are fossils in same strata pointing to 'burial of animals and plants'

(c) which again, the difference you are seeking is say no fossils in a strata, but
when speaking about creating, assume fossils are present in the same data.

I may be wrong, that is why I need clarification. Please, if you may.

As a result of what God has communicated to us through His Word and what we observe in His world, we can safely conclude that the order of fossils in the rock record can be accounted for by the year-long Flood, as a result of the pre-Flood biogeography and ecological zonation, the early burial of marine creatures, the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water and the behaviour and higher mobility of the vertebrates.  Therefore, the order of the fossils in the rock record doesn't favour long ages, but is consistent with the global, catastrophic, year-long Genesis flood cataclysm, followed by localised residual catastrophism.

Okay, thank you - but these are all teleology. If you believe they are science, please provide a falsifiable theory that tidies up what you have just stated. If we cannot find a testable hypothesis that can survive into theories, the explanations in that quote above lack explanatory powers scientifically, and therefore unconvincing.

It is not that teleology is useless. No - infact, teleology is quite powerful if and only if ("iff" the person using it is able to test out his or her hypothesis. But I shall save further comments until my next replies.

The topic is kinda funny. We all know what is meant by something being "deceptive"; so what is the point asking if that very thing is "godly"?

When I encounter scenarios as in the vid link in the OP, I just try (yes, try so haaaard) to imagine how the OT prophets and the NT apostles would ever have engaged in such "ministries". When money is being "worshipped" in any form (such as in taking the center stage in people's lives and outlook), something is definitely wrong somewhere.

The 'PG' (Prosperity Gospel) enterprise seems to work only when the traffic is pointing to self. "Money cometh to me - NOW". It is not queer that such should be the case, because I would be willing to bet that true spirituality looks out for the welfare of others, not self. Perhaps it is not too much to note that when money and self are the main emphasis of a particular type of ministry enterprise, then the 'PG' rules in such circles.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4723060#msg4723060 date=1255425167]

[li] Tithing never originated from the mosaic law hence it must not adhere to the pattern of the mosaic law[/li]

[li] The basic origin of tithing was simply TO RENDER ONE-TENTH of one's income/profit, there its regardless if it is done everyday/everyweek/everymonth/everyyear[/li][/quote]I like your reasoning, and yes, I agree with those postulations. Tithing never originated from the Mosaic Law; and anyone who does not understand that would always want to drag all issues of tithing to the Mosaic Law.

As for the second one, now I understand where chukwudi was coming from when he mentioned the issue of "daily tithing". Like I said, it is not the frequency that determines someone's giving as tithes; rather, it is the giving in itself that is referred to as tithes - regardless of when it is done.

_________________________

Zikkyy:

[li] Tithing never originated from the mosaic law hence it must not adhere to the pattern of the mosaic law[/li]

[li] The basic origin of tithing was simply TO RENDER ONE-TENTH of one's income/profit, there its regardless if it is done everyday/everyweek/everymonth/everyyear[/li]

Where did you get this info from, i am interested. It would be nice if you can provide reference. Some of us really want to learn. Thanks.

Hi Zikkyy, do you have something else in mind to bear on those two points outlined in Tonye-t's submission? I guess if someone is asking a question the way you did, then it would mean that the questioner basically disagrees with what he read; or otherwise he would not be asking them in the first place if he agreed.

debosky:
@ viaro

I just saw your earlier response to my post. . .apologies for the late reply

That's no problem.

Apologies for my lack of clarity. The passage is not prescriptive on PERCENTAGE to be given - the instruction is given to lay aside what YOU decide to give, in line with how God has prospered you, before Paul came. It did not say give x%, it only said give in proportion to how you've been blessed.

By measuring out, you have determined how much you want to give as instructed in 2 Cor 9:7.

I do not claim nor suggest that Paul's instruction should be ignored - it should simply be treated as what it is: An instruction to give and make this giving regular and orderly for proper organisation. No one is compelled to give a certain amount, but all are instructed to give.

I have absolutely nothing against this - let each man (or woman) give as he decides in his own heart, not out of a belief that you are doing what the Israelites did, because that is clearly not the case.

In hindsight, I should've realised your point as you have now clarified further. Appreciated.

If this was the ONLY place Jesus mentioned Justice, Mercy and Faith, then you would be completely correct. However it is NOT. Copious examples of Justice, Mercy and Faith are given, with entire parables dedicated to each one of them. If indeed, this was a placing at par and an implicit instruction, surely Jesus would have equally gone on to teach parables as he did for the latter 3? But he did not.

I think that's where we're mixing up issues. By saying that He placed them both at par, it was clear that He did so in that verse. Essentially, He said: DO BOTH. Certainly, it is not in every instance He mentioned all three matters together (judgement, mercy and faith) - at various instances, He either taught on being merciful (as in Luke 6:36) without mentioning either faith or judgement (ie., justice); but at other instances, He taught about those others without mentioning mercy. The point was that in that verse of Matthew 23:23, He brought them together and essentially gave value to all He mentioned there. In simplicity, He essentially said to do both.

I don't think Christianity is rested expressly on that statement, but that is a discussion for another day. To put it differently, without that verse in the bible, is Jesus' role in doubt? NO - there are copious examples of Jesus interceding on our behalf, not dependent on Melchisedec. In any case, Jesus interceding on our behalf was clearly established during his life on earth. Melchisedec primarily (but not solely) served to buttress the earlier message in a manner more understandable to the Hebrews as the name of the book implies.

Lol, there are several good points as there are mixed up issues I perceive there. First, I don't remember intoning that He was "dependent" on Melchizedek; rather, the point was that just because He did not expressly mention a particular subject does not mean therefore that it had no place in His life and ministry. There are so many things that He did not mention, and if we are only looking for what He mentioned, then I reckon perhaps half of our Christianity would be out the window. Do you get my jive?

Second, I'm somewhat not sure that His intercession would have been effected on earth. The first question would be: in what capacity was He interceding? If the answer is in the capacity of "a priest", then it is clear from Hebrews 8:4 that "if he were on earth, he should not be a priest". It was not in an earthly capacity that He ministered to interced for us as Christians - rather, it was in the capacity of His glorification as our High Priest in heaven that He could ever assume that role.

Third, Melchizedek may have been addressed to the Hebrews; but its message rings clear to the entire Body of Christ. How else should we know precisely the office He assumes as Priest on our behalf? If I remember clearly now, it seems to me that no other book in the NT shows Christ as our High Priest the way Hebrews does - because the first thing to ask would be as regards the lineage that establishes Him as such.

But ahh! All this should have been saved for another discussion as you suggested. _{>viaro knocks head on his keyboard<}

Again, the allegory of Jesus being the high priest is one of the tools to LINK the old priesthood of the Old Testament to the New Testament. It does not establish the foundation of our faith per se, which is that Jesus is the lamb who came to take away our sins, or that he is the beloved Son of God whom we should listen to and is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the ONLY way to the Father.

But isn't it all clear that these are traced back to the Law?

Furthermore, Jesus PRAYING for his disciples and teaching them was clear evidence of his priesthood when he was on earth.

Nope, He could not assume the priesthood while He was on earth - read Hebrews 8:4.

I agree fully with you - tithes were NOT condemned. But if we are to talk about things NOT condemned, burnt sacrifices were not condemned either were they? 

I would rather be persauded that burnt offerings were made "inoperative" (is that the word? well. . .) It is clear what happened to burnt offerings when we read the book of Hebrews 10:8-9.

With the in depth details of how churches (the body of believers) should be run, it is telling that apart from a cursory mention in castigating legalistic pharisees and in references to levites paying tithes while in Abraham's loins we find sparse reference to tithing in the NT, and definitely NO MENTION of 'paying of tithes' given as instruction to the Church.

Good observation.

Giving regularly is however given prominence in many parts, with CLEAR instructions as you so eloquently described. I am convinced that if it were a 'requirement' to give a fixed percentage of 10% (or any other determined percentage) as is taught today in many churches, the leaders of the early church would not have failed to mention it.

Like you, I'm not convinced that giving was a "requirement" - I may even go as far as to say that it was not a "requirement" in the OT? That word leaves me wondering what intrinsic value it fulfilled if it was made a "requirement". But that's just me, and I cannot push my ideas too strongly.

Clearly there is no need to condemn the tithe, if, as I believe, it was understood as an obligation as set out under the Levitical priesthood tending the temples. As that system had been superseded with the tearing of the veil, no such requirement was needed anymore.

'No such requirement' was "needed" at any time. Lol, yes, under the OT dispensation, the Levites had a commandment to take tithes - and even the Levites themselves also "paid" tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek. But I haven't come across any verse as yet that made it a "requirement" in as much as it did not point to the fulfillment of any indispensable aspect of their salvation or atonement under the Law. The tithes were simply a matter of thanksgiving to God.

You make so much sense that is simply delightful to read. These few points stand out especially for me:

debosky:
Justice, mercy and faith are principles in themselves, not clearly prescriptive practices that tithes are. This is the very issue Jesus was tackling - the Pharisees were excellent in fulfilling explicitly stated practices and 'ticking all the boxes', but would not do what would benefit the people under their care.

Excellent.

Furthermore, even if Jesus placed them at par, what is this TITHE he referred to? As the partly truthful 'expose' by Akere has shown, this was almost exclusively limited to agricultural produce and animal husbandry and not to anything else. If Jesus referred to this TITHE of animals and produce to LEVITES, who are we to 'modify' this to mean monthly/weekly paying of INCOME to the 'church'?  

This is where I have some problems. To remain on ideas as such is to talk about "principles" and yet fail to follow through with the same "principles" in practical terms. Look at it again: the tithes in that verse were 'mint and anise and cummin' - these are pointing to herbs and not to animals. I'm just showing you an example of following a rigid sense of reading; and when you are refering to 'animals' in that verse, you certainly would have "modified" what He said, in as much as He did not mention such. Of course, we would have to point back to the Law and read past what He said in that verse - which in so doing is applying a "principle". Otherwise, to diffuse them would render that verse weak and make it sound as if "the weightier matters of the Law" were for the Jews alone.

Finally, I like your use of the term 'intrinsic nature' of the Law. When it comes down to it, all that matters is giving according to how you have decided in your heart to give as taught in the new testament, and the principle of sowing and reaping.

Spot on! And let me not fail to mention that the very same principle is what we find in the OT - God's offerings were to be received from those whose hearts were willing. It mattered nothing to Him if someone was fulfilling the strict Law of 10% or less or more. What was far more important in both Testaments was the condition of the giver's heart.

To 'cajole' people into giving 'tithes' by quoting factual but inapplicable references in the Old Testament is neither useful nor illuminating. It just muddles issues and causes the type of fractious opposition we have witnessed on this thread.

I understand. The problem is even deeper than that. When one reads through the New Testament, at first it appears that many, many verses quoted from the OT hardly fit into what is being quoted in the NT. The problem seems to ease off when we understand that the 'intrinsic nature' of the Law is what we find in the NT, rather than a literal intonation.

chukwudi44:
@viaro

you mean to tell me that the percentage of tithe is fixed as stated in the bible while the frequency stated can be varied ?this is hypocrisy opf the highest standard.

I understand that many people who try to hold a rigid idea about Biblical tithes have that hypocricy - whether such is of the highest order is not any concern of mine. When you have checked the recommendations I mentioned earlier, you prolly might see what level you have achieved.

it's an open secret that u re

If my initial answer does not satisfy you, does your insistence add anything to you personally? I'd be delighted if you make me someone I am not; even at that, what have you said so far as to the subject?

chineke God!!are my dreaming or is my eyes deceiving me,where in the bible was tithe directed to be paid to anyother  tribe other than the levites?.

It was right in those chapters you quoted:

[list]Deuteronomy 14:28
At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
^v.29  And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and . .
[size=14pt]  -  the stranger,
  -  and the fatherless,
  -  and the widow, [/size]
which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.[/list]

[list]Deuteronomy 26:12 -
When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, . .
[size=14pt] - the stranger,
- the fatherless,
- and the widow, [/size]
that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled; [/list]

Are you still awake? Or you chose to read only "Levites" and forgot all about others specifically mentioned in the same verses you had quoted?

I never thought People could be so desperate

I noticed you top the list.

OLAADEGBU:
Did you watch all the clips?

Yes, I did.

chukwudi44:
@pilgrim 1

why the change of name ? it's so obvious u re viaro

I'm not Pilgrim.1, sorry.

The bible was so explicit in deut 14:28 and deut 26 :12 that leveitical tithe should be paid every three years,it definitely imputed a tithing frequency to the law,this law if still valid has to be respected in both thge percentage of the income and the frequency of payment

That's your view - and no, my understanding is not that rigid. I also offered you to check Jewish references to see things for yourself: surely, the Jews should be in a better position to share their own theology on the subject with us, don't you think?

Another way to verify this is simple: have you noticed that the misrepresentation of these matters is coming from no other groups than Christians? When it is obvious that the Torah is not rigid on just Levitical tithes, Christians have tried to make it so. Examples are found in the arguments that there is only one tithe instead of several - only Christian theologians would argue like that, but Jews would feel sorry to see the way we mishandle the Torah. This was why I referred you to the Maaser (Maaser Ani, Maaser Roshni, etc). The Jews never confuse these at all, so why should Christians often try to confuse them?

Second, is it not obvious that tithes, even under the Law, was not strictly for just the levites alone? Go through those texts you quoted, and you'll see that others were entitled to tithes as well. Why then make it only a matter of the Levites, or forget others who were specifically mentioned as well?

But what is 'the true religion'?

The way I see it, maybe there are so many things that we may not agree on in terms of doctrine. However, I would say that we learn to have our own convictions and not use our own preferences to judge others unnecessarily. I cannot hide the fact that there are many things I've benefitted from Catholic scholarship. The rest that I don't understand, I ask God for understanding since my own practice is not the authority for all other Christians.

As regards what is 'true religion', the only time I remember coming across something close to that connotation in Scripture is in James 1:27 where it says that "pure" and "undefiled" religion before God the Father is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. In that case, I think that many Catholics tick the boxes on that.

What do you think?

tayotoyin:
I never said Jesus' coming has given us the freedom of going against the OLD TIME LAWS.
No!

I owe you a sincere apology - it is apparent that I had misread you. Reading through again, I notice that you did not fail to clearly state this: "Christ's coming & subsequently His death doesn't wipe out the law of tithing,his redeemeing us to Himself doesn't mean we are free 2 act as we will". Okay, I'm sorry to have gotten that point mixed up. Let me explain.

Actually, Gentiles were not given any "law of tithing". I stand to be corrected on that one. However, it seems clear to me that the Christian faith and testimony are based on the principles of the Law for all believing Jews and Gentiles in Christ. What's the difference? What the Body of Christ looks to are principles, not literalism. As a result of this, we cannot claim any "law of tithing" from the Mosaic Law for ourselves; but we certainly can draw from the principles of the Old Testament and the Law for today. This is why we read in so many instances in the NT that most of our Christian doctrines are derived from the same OT Law. I should have made myself clear - but since that was not the case, I apologise to you. Please forgive me.

A person that says the law of marriage(because it is a law that we have been redeemed from) should not be binding on a woman whose husband is still alive,hmmm,has got a couple of screws up in his head loose!
I submit 4 now!

Lol, I did not argue to falsify the law of marriage. My point was that we should remember that even though we are not under the Law, its principles nevertheless apply in our Christian marriages. Again, please don't be miffed at my mix up. Cheers.

While Mr Akeredolu's observations are appreciated in so many instances, there is this very disturbing trend that we see with many anti-tithers. They recycle the same fictitious story over and over again that one wonders why 'christian ministers' must go to any length to lie to the public. I'm sorry to make this plain as it it, but please beloeved people of God, it is time to tell these pretenders to their faces that they are lying through their teeth! I will point this out soon, but let me acknowledge some of the things I appreciate in his piece and highlight a few others that are wide of the mark.

1. First, I'm relieved to find that Akeredolu observed indeed that the Levites were alloted some property in Israel. Often is the case that many people say that the Levites had no inheritance - but this guy is one of the few I've read who does not make that mistake. Let me quote him:

The Levites were not given territorial lands like other Israelites. They (along with the Priests) were allotted forty eight cities in which they could earn a living. This means the Levites received a reasonable amount of acreage to cultivate besides the fact that many of those cities were located in some of the best parts of the Land of Canaan.

Spot on! Good observation - and i hope that those who are still arguing that the Levites had no inheritance would desist making that misleading connotation.

2. He also did not go down the lane of those who insist that Abraham gave back 90% to the king of Sodom. Indeed, Abraham did not take anything to himself - nor was he "required" to give any tithe to anybody. Yet, he could take the goods and give a tithe to Melchizedek while also sharing portions to his confederates. I like the way Akeredolu put it:

Notice Abram's statements in verses 22-24. He owned none of the property in question before the battle and, although entitled to the spoils as the victor, he refused to take any of it: "I will accept nothing belonging to you" (v. 23). Abram gave away ten percent of other people's property, in a representative act of thanksgiving to God on behalf of some people who had been miraculously rescued from a life of slavery.

However, the part that Abraham took other people's property is quite misleading - that would be theft. The plain truth is that the spoils belonged to the victor (in this case Abraham), otherwise he could not take other people's property and do as he pleased. To do so would have been theft.

______________

Now, here is something I must point out as false; and I don't know what in the world Akeredolu was thinking to have made that huge slip. There are so many things that simply don't square in his piece; but I shall point out just this one that I had already pointed out earlier in my reply to chukwudi.

Akeredolu is quoted as saying that he had "participated in chats with three independent Rabbis". Nothing wrong with that. . . except that he had taken plagiarised the same fictitious story from Ernest L. Martin and made it his own!

Anyone reading that piece would just see through the blanket.

THE JEWS DO NOT TITHE TODAY

In the past, I have thought about what the practice of modern Jews is now. What I found out was shocking! Thank God for the internet. I have been able to participate in chats with three independent Rabbis and I was amazed at their replies. Much to my dismay, all three independently of each other informed me that no religious Jew should tithe today. I was startled at their replies. This appeared to be evidence that the Jews were so lax with their biblical interpretation that they were abandoning even the simple words of their own Scripture about the laws of tithing.
By the time I discussed with the last rabbi, my youthful indignation was beginning to emerge. But that rabbi then wisely began to show me my ignorance (not his) in the whole matter. First, he admitted that none of his congregation paid one penny of tithe that was demanded in the Old Testament. He then said: "If any member of my synagogue paid tithe in the scriptural manner, he would be disobeying the law of God—he would be sinning against God."
I was staggered by his answer. He went on to state that since the Bible demands that the tithe be paid to Levites, he said it would be wrong to pay it to anyone else. And further, because there is presently no official Levitical order of Priests ministering at a Temple in Jerusalem, this makes it illegal at this period to pay any biblical tithe. The Israelites are very meticulous in keeping records. Since the Temple was destroyed in AD70 by the Romans, all records were lost. It has since been difficult to establish a true Levitical order. He went on to say, however, that the moment a Temple is rebuilt, with its altar in operation and with the priesthood officiating at that altar (and the Levites there to assist them), then every Jew who lives in the tithing zones mentioned in the Bible will be required to tithe according to the biblical commands.
This teaching was a revelation to me (as it may be to some of you), but the rabbi gave the proper biblical answers. To pay the biblical tithe at this time, without Levites and Priests in their regular ordained offices and doing service in the Temple, would be "sin" both to the giver and the receiver. The rabbi told me: "If we are to obey the law, we cannot pay tithe unless we pay it to the ones ordained by God to accept that tithe."

Aside from the fact that I've given examples to show that Orthodox Jews actually STILL tithe today, I'm particularly concerned that many Christians are cooking up all sorts of fictitious stories just to make people believe that Jews don't tithe today!

Just go back to the link that chukwudi left earlier to chapter 3 of Ernest L. Martin's "askelm _dot com" - Akeredolu just recycled the same fiction, changed a few sentences to make it look like it was his (Akeredolu's) experience with those Rabbis! This is quite unfortunate, and should not be coming from Christians, let alone "ministers".

Place them side by side:

1. Martin had a chat with 3 rabbis - Akeredolu had a chat with 3 rabbis.

2. Martin expressed "youthful indignation" by the time he had spoken with the third rabbi - Akeredolu simply 'photocopied' that part for his story telling.

3. Martin also noted that he was "staggered by his answer" - these are the very same words that Akeredolu copied into his plagiarism.

4. Martin claimed that "This teaching was a revelation to me" - precisely the same words Akeredolu used for his own story!

5. Martin also pointed out that the rabbi "then wisely began to show me my ignorance (not his) in the whole matter" - this again was dramatically photocopied by Akeredolu as if he was the one who chatted with those 3 Rabbis!

Come on, people!

I could go on to list so many other highlights, but what is the use really? I just wonder that the same fictitious story is being recycled over and over and over again by none other than "Christian ministers!" Why must people resort to this kind of falsehood just to give credit to their anti-tithing thesis? After all is said and done, it makes some of us wonder if these guys are complete strangers to 'truth' - we ought not to brazenly tell such fibs to the public and damn our consciences. Those who are aware understand that Ernest L. Martin was making up that story - but those who keep recycling it to the gullible Christian crowd do not realise what they are doing. May God forgive us all.

Finally for the evening:

chukwudi44:
It is really amazing ,I just confirmed it online now that modern jews dont pay tithe today

I was staggered by his answer. He went on to inform me that since the Bible demands that the tithe be paid to Levites, he said it would be wrong to pay it to anyone else. And further, because there is presently no official Levitical order of Priests ministering at a Temple in Jerusalem, this makes it illegal at this period to pay any biblical tithe. He went on to say, however, that the moment a Temple is rebuilt, with its altar in operation and with the priesthood officiating at that altar (and the Levites there to assist them), then every Jew who lives in the tithing zones mentioned in the Bible will be required to tithe according

http://www.askelm.com/tithing/thi003.htm

Lol, trust Ernest L. Martin with his fictitious stories. Dear chukwudi, relax bro - you "confirmed" nothing. . . nada. . zilch! If you believed Martin, he had you on the cheap!

I must confess something to you. First, I'm deeply embarrassed that Christian "ministers" would go about recycling this obvious LIE! The rest of us who believe them do so because we never read between the lines and just swallow this poison so gullibly the angels must be staggered! Let me show you the weakness in Martin's little blue book:

1. First, you should notice that he was giving you a fiction conjecture. Yes, he quipped that he telephoned "three rabbis in the Los Angeles area". Hang on mate. . what were their names? The reason I ask this question is typical as that is the first thing a Jew would ask you if you carelessly and niggardly dream up a story and mentioned "rabbi". Ernest Martin just told-you-so but mentioned no pointers, no names, no face, no synagogues to which those "rabbis" were officiating, no Jewish scholarship - NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. He just "telephoned yada-yada". Yea right!

2. Second, Martin did not even take time to look beyond the Los Angeles area - for him, 3 nameless and faceless "rabbis" were all it took to settle the matter, regardless of the numerous Jewish scholarship in and outside the 'LA area'. _{>viaro sadly shakes head!<}

3. Third, for those amazingly theatrical effects that would fool the gullible, Martin writes that one of the rabbis informed him: "If we are to obey the law, we cannot pay tithe unless we pay it to the ones ordained by God to accept that tithe." By this he meant that tithes are "illegal" because there are no ordanied Levites today and no Temple services in Jerusalem. My question is: did Martin and his 3 rabbis in LA ever study the same Deuteronomy to see that it was not only Levites that received tithes - but the POOR as well?? Nay, the poor didn't have to qualify as the kohen or kohanim (priests) before they also were to receive tithes!

Now, I could just flush this old little blue book of finely crafted tales by Martin if I was to do a review on chapter 3 alone. But with due respect to you chukwudi, I'd rather point you to some Jewish sources also availabl online where you can authenticate the real issue for yourself. When 'Christian ministers' go about spreading such sad 'tell-you-stories', the rest of us should be slow. . . v-e-r-y s-l-o-w . . to reharsh their fallacies and claim we have "confirmed" them.

Here are examples of sources I would leave you for now:
[list]
1. Do Jews tithe like evangelical Christians ?
all of the teaching evangelical Christians get about tithing
comes from the Torah and that's to give 10 % of all earnings
to the church. do Jews do this ?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
You are correct; tithing is mentioned in the Torah,
and we Orthodox Jews give at leat 10% of our earnings
to charity, since the recommended amount is 20%.
The annual membership at the average Orthodox synagogue
is $500 to $1,000 (NOT $5,000) per family, and this comes out
of the 20%, of course. Again; the amount we give goes to
different charities, not the synagogues. This includes both Jewish
and non-Jewish charities. The most popular charities are orphanages,
aid to families living in poverty, aid to victims of natural (or man-made)
disasters, etc.

Source(s):
I am Jewish and Orthodox

~~ culled from Yahoo Answers on the topic

- - - - - - - - - - -

2. Orthodox Judaism still regards tithe obligations as residing in produce grown in the Land of Israel. Contemporary practice is to set aside terumah, separate ma'aser rishon, separate terumat ma'aser, then redeem ma'aser sheni with a coin (on years that do not coincide with ma'aser ani). The coin can be a minimal amount capable of purchasing food and need not be the value of the produce.
~~ culled from Wikipedia on "Maaser Ani"[/list]

There are numerous others to help you; but please don't let such guys like Martin take you on the cheap. Sincerely.

chukwudi44:
@viaro
u re welcomed to the discussion,thereis this question that I have been beging for answers fro pro tithers .Am going to repeat it again for the umpteenth time.

How come the tithing frequency was increased from once in three years(deut 14;28,deut 26;12) mentioned in the bible to the unbiblical weekly monthly and daily tithing practised today ?

My dear sir, exaggerated misrepresentations are not in my domain. I do not know about "daily tithing", never heard of it, nor does it have any weight whatsoever in the main gist of what is to be answered.

Second, "tithing frequency" is a cheap construct that completely misses the point and further muddies the waters. "Tithe" is considered "tithe" regardless of how anyone may think of its "frequency" or not.

It should be clear to us all that is NOT the 'frequency' of the giving of tithes that makes our giving be properly called "tithes". Let me remind you of the example of Abraham - in the Genesis account, we don't read of any "three years" or "unbiblical weekly monthly and daily tithing" that he gave to Melchizedek. Plain and simple, he gave ONLY ONCE - and that singular act was TWICE called "tithes" in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and NT (Heb. 7:6). If God's Word did not wait for any human-misconstructs of "frequency" before referring to calling Abraham's tithes as "tithes", I am quite satisfied to go with what is written and remove myself from this misadventure of pegging a "frequency" to it.

Another thing: that one singular act of Abraham went so far as to affect his unborn generation. Hebrews 7:9 informs us that the tithes Abraham gave Melchizedek also affected Levi, such that it is reported that "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham." God didn't wait for us today to confuse ourselves looking too closely for "frequency" before acknowledging Abraham's singular tithes with far reaching consequences. Why do we as Christians like to spend waste  precious time with all these unnecessary arguments about time, shape and 'frequency' that are not even germane to the real issue? What the Word of God says is enough for me.

Now, a look at Deuteronomy 14:28 and 26:12 that you quoted:

Those verse have to be considered in the context of the Jewish feast - specifically in connection of seasons and numbers. The number 3  was (and is) very important in Jewish hermeneutics, so that it is not only in Deut. 14 and 26 that the third year was a year of tithing, but it is also written that all Jewish males were to appear/gather at Jerusalem before the Lord every three years (Deut. 16:16) - these gatherings were specifically arranged around 3 Jewish feasts:

           * in the feast of unleavened bread,
           * in the feast of weeks
           * and in the feast of tabernacles

You will also find that during the gathering of the tithes in the third year, it was a festive period in Jewish calendars: this is why when you consult the other passages where tithes are spoken of (such as Numbers 18 and Leviticus 23), you would find by careful reading that tithes were gathered each year, and then the third year (specifically called the year of tithing), and then other years except the seventh year when the land had a sabbath. You will find these explained if you check references on "Maaser Sheni, Maaser Rishon, and Maaser Ani".

The point in all this is not so much the time of the year that made the stuff properly be referred to as "tithes". The bigger and more important issue was that the tenth of their labours was what was regarded as tithes. For this reason, you will find that other passages where tithes are spoken of had nothing to do with specific calendaring - and Abraham's tithes is a good example where it did not follow the conventions of the Mosaic Law (no "third year" etc).

Now, if in our day some have been led to tithe without waiting for the conventions of the Law or human-misconstructs of "frequency", why should I have any problems with that? If the Holy Spirit speaks to some Christians to tithe of their income, they should by all means obey Him and Him alone. And yes, there are many such instances where this has happened and continue to happen.

Hi guys,

I'll try and enjoy a brief moment while still on my break. This is just to help chukwudi who addressed me directly.

First, thank you for the warm welcome. Now here's what I think with regards to your enquiry:

chukwudi44:
it is awell known fact that Jesus lived under the dispensation of the law.At the time Jesus made the above statements tithing was still valid likewise burnt offering,circumcision and other jewish laws .

There's a mixture there, and that is why you seem to be missing huge gaps there.

1. True, Jesus lived under the dispensation of the Law. However, you fail to understand the intrinsic nature of the said Law that you may been examining. The one question you need to ask yourself is this: what is the Law?

2. It is not a simplistic answer to (1) above that would help settle the matter. If you observe closely, there were "matters of the Law" that we need to pay attention to - judgement, mercy, and faith.

3. In the same breathe of that same verse, He implicitly placed both tithes and judgement, mercy and faith at PAR.

4. If anyone argues that only "judgement, mercy and faith" appeal to us as Christians today, such a person needs to understand that he/she is applauding the same "matters of the Law" that they are rejecting because of tithe.

5. To applaud one and reject the other is to violate what Jesus said in that verse and qualify as a hypocrite. Why? Because the things we are happy to take into Christianity (judgement, mercy and faith) are essentially called "weightier matters of the Law". Incidentally, the tithes are not the "weightier", and this should make us think deep within our hearts that it is futile as Christians to raise so much dust about tithe and yet never once realize that we are still sitting glued to the weightier matters of the Law.

6. An example of how Jesus taught NT principles from the Law while still living under the dispensation of the Law is found in Matthew 22:36-40. A lawyer had asked Him a question concerning the Law: "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" He answerd that question by directly quoting the Law - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (see Deuteronomy 6:5), and also "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18).

What's the point? Simply this: your argument of the 'dispensation' of the Law for Matthew 23:23 does not quite balance things at all. This is so, if you feel that Matt. 23:23 applied only to Jews. If that is the case, we as Christians have no reason to pretend that we have nothing to do with the Law while at the same time dancing around the weightier matters of that same Law! Yes, everyone likes the sound of the words "love, judgement, mercy and faith" - but are those not matters that are undeniably OF THE LAW? It seems these days when we read Jesus direct teaching in Matthew 23:23, we choose to pick one and drop the other - whereas He essentially said: DO BOTH!!

If you cannot acknowledge that He said we should do both in that verse, then you have no business cherry picking some - love, judgement, mercy and faith are all matters of that same Law! If they don't apply to you, drop them immediately and never speak about them again!

There is no how this verse can be used to validate this criminal practice,besides that verse explicitly states that tithing while valid was not even among the weighty requirement of the law.

First, the typical anti-tithers who quickly confuse issues for themselves cannot resist referring to tithes with sour adjectives. Did God refer to tithes at anytime as "criminal"? You may not feel like you should tithe. Good - just keep your faith to yourself, and all will be well. But to make something criminal when God did not once make it so in His Word is to miss the mark by a million miles.

Second, how much of the "weightier matters" do you truly know in experience? If tithes are "smaller matters", it is surprising that it bothers anti-tithers so seriously to the point of a joke that one can't imagine what would happen if we were told that the "weightier matters" are not evident in our lives.

Besides, He did not refer to those factors (judgement, mercy and faith) as "weightier requirements" - no, He said "weightier matters". Our problem today is that we almost turn everything into a "requirement" from start to finish and then miss the whole point of His message. How this happens so many times is what I hope to show you subsequently.